Ilford XP2

[krnt]

What do you think about the XP2 as a every day film, instedad of the usual
Tri-X. For me it would be moore convient as I do´t develop the film myself.
What do I lose, and wath do I gain when using my M6 TTL and Summi 50mm.
/ Thomas in Sweden.

[peter_n]

If you don't print in a conventional wet darkroom I don't think you lose anything. To me the prints made from classic old silver thick-emulsion films are richer than those made from chromogenic films, but that is just my eyes.

C-41 films like XP2 are tremendous - excellent latitude, convenient to process, and they scan wonderfully well. I would say go for it! :)

[Solinar]

I loose speed when shooting XP2 because I use it at EI 250. With Tri-X, I'm good to go up to about EI 1600. What is there to gain? Enlargements with smaller grain and XP2 has a nice look when the scene has lots of contrast.

[Nikon Bob]

I agree with Peter, I do not print in a conventional darkroom, and the results with C41 B&W satisfy me. I shot mostly Kodak B&W C41 rated at 200 so you lose a little speed. I would also check the Kodak out to see which you like best if you go this route.

Bob

[krnt]

My Regards to all of you who has given me edvice about the XP2.
Iwill give it a try.
/ Thomas in Sweden

[vincentbenoit]

XP2 looks too "clean" for my taste, I much prefer the grain of Tri-X, but that's just me...
Vincent

[richard_l]

XP2 (with the film speed set at ISO 320 or 250) is what I usually use in my Leicas. I like the tonality, exposure latitude, and how well the negatives scan. The Kodak C-41 B&W films are also very good.

Richard

[CJP6008]

I am not a big fan of C41 B&W films. I just cannot get a satisfying print from them. Not sharp enough. As the well known printer Melvin Cambette-Davies said to me once whe I had given him some XP2 negs to print "Chris, do yourself a favour, never use that stuff again! There's no body to the negs, no silver in it."

Wise words.

Scare yourself with how good your leitz lenses are, try neopan 400 in PMK. For a look at what this film/dev combo can do see www.edkrebs.com. (Ed shoots Rolleis)

[Gabriel M.A.]

Here's what I found using the Search Function; these may help you out:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6859&highlight=XP2

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2724&highlight=XP2

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1487&highlight=XP2

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2752&highlight=XP2

Unfortunately, many attachments were lost yesterday, so if you see people discussing things that don't make sense, it's most likely a picture that doesn't exist on the thread anymore because it was lost yesterday.

[Solinar]

I am not a big fan of C41 B&W films. I just cannot get a satisfying print from them. Not sharp enough.

Sounds like horse hockey to me. XP2 prints fine on number 3 grade paper or using a 3 to 3 1/2 filter on multigrade paper. It enlarges better than Tri-X, too. I print with both.

[captainslack]

When you shoot XP2 at a lower speed, do you tell the lab you've done so or just have it developed normally?

[richard_l]

When you shoot XP2 at a lower speed, do you tell the lab you've done so or just have it developed normally?Don't tell the lab anything.

[nwcanonman]

What do you think about the XP2 as a every day film, instedad of the usual
Tri-X. For me it would be moore convient as I do´t develop the film myself.
What do I lose, and wath do I gain when using my M6 TTL and Summi 50mm.
/ Thomas in Sweden.
...............
Thomas,
I LOVE XP2 ! With a medium yellow filter, I shoot at the rated 400 and love the look. For outdoor/landscapes I use a red filter mostly and it's always sharp. Using a Bessa R and the CV 35mm Skopar.

[Stu W]

I was going to ask about filters. After speaking to you all a couple of days ago in a thread about C41 B&W film, I decided to give it a try. As it is really a color film, I was curious about the use of filters? Will they work the same as on Tri-X? Thanks. Stu

[Solinar]

For a dramatic effect with your outdoor exposures, try a #2 orange filter.

[Nikon Bob]

Stu

Use the same filters that you would for conventional B&W films. Some say that the effect is more pronounced with the C41 B&W films. I have only used a yellow filter and find that enough.

Bob

[Doug]

XP2 has more red-sensitivity than Tri-X, so renders blue skies a bit darker, not that same blank white. So, less need for the yellow filter, etc, but in general filters have a similar effect.

I'm very fond of XP2, liking the smoothness and richness of the results, and giving it a generous exposure by setting the meter to EI 250.

[skimmel]

I'm new to using XP2 but have really liked it a lot. Seems like everyone who's replied rates it at less than 400. I haven't tried that yet, but am curious as to why those who do rate it this way prefer that.

[Fedzilla_Bob]

Frankly, I like it. A lot. Seems to me that it has great lattitude.


http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=9973&cat=4891

[Doug]

Seems like everyone who's replied rates it at less than 400. I haven't tried that yet, but am curious as to why those who do rate it this way prefer that.Smoother look, finer grain (dye clumps closer together), better detail and contrast in the darker areas. C41 type films, both color and chromogenic B&W, have almost no tolerance for underexposure, but gladly suffer overexposure, so rating it lower also gives you some leeway for error in the underexposure direction. So I "under-rate" color neg films the same as I do XP2

[richard_l]

I'm new to using XP2 but have really liked it a lot. Seems like everyone who's replied rates it at less than 400. I haven't tried that yet, but am curious as to why those who do rate it this way prefer that.Rated at 400 it seems more prone to blocking shadows than blowing out highlights. Therefore downrating it to 320 or 250 seems to put the exposure more toward the center of the latitude range. It doesn't make a huge difference, but you might try it and see if you prefer the effect.

[skimmel]

Thanks Doug and richard_l. I see what you mean (having had some issues with blocked shadows). I'll give it a try. (To date, I've been a bit lazy and just tweak the image in Photoshop to fix the shadows which seems to work well as long as I'm not making large prints.)

[rich815]

XP2 is wonderful stuff. Great latitude, good tonal range, really performs well in high contrast situations (see attached). It is NOT the same as traditional B&W films and will give a different look----sort of more creamy and smooth instead of gritty and biting. I use both depending on my purpose. Give it a try! It scans very easily (and you can use ICE too).

Richard

[Doug]

XP2 ... is NOT the same as traditional B&W films and will give a different look----sort of more creamy and smooth instead of gritty and biting. I use both depending on my purpose.Good point, Richard... when I'm looking for attractive grain, the traditional films have it. With a half-frame camera for instance, I figure the grain is inevitable (except with really slow films), so I might as well celebrate it with a traditional film.

Giving the C41 films generous exposure helps enough with 24x36mm (or larger) to retain its smooth and creamy look, and richness of tonality. Nice to have the choices!

[meyman]

I found XP2 too muddy for all but bright outdoor shots. It somehow reminded me of Agfa Scala with nice blacks, excellent grays and no real highlights. Or maybe color film converted to greyscale in PS. Perhaps I stopped using it too quickly and should have experimented more, but with Tri-x, Neopan and APX being much cheaper here in Poland, I just didn't have the motivation

[Doug]

I found XP2 too muddy for all but bright outdoor shots.Getting low contrast muddy prints is a fairly common complaint with XP2, but it's the lab's fault, I suggest, not really the film's. Since it's the light-dark contrasts that are important for B&W, poor attention to this in printing is quite obvious... whereas with color film it's not so notable because of the presence of color to define the subject matter.

I've found it's usually necessary in the darkroom to use a higher contrast paper with XP2 to get that sparkle, but honestly this is ok with me. I'd prefer to capture a wide range of light-dark values in the negative, giving me more choices in printing. With scanned XP2 negs, it's easy enough to pump up the contrast a bit in post-processing (with Photoshop or whatever).

Here's an indoor low-contrast situation, illustrated below. Fluorescent ceiling lighting, Contax G2, 35mm Planar nearly wide open, and XP2... And then a 100%-scale crop of part of the scan for a closer look.

[saxshooter]

How archival is XP2 and Kodak's version of it? I've found that some of my C41 color negative film has indeed shifted in color (fade) after a few years and most certainly has gone "flat". These are observations I've made from scanning.

I fear that chromogenic black and white film would suffer the same fate? Perhaps its something that can be compensated with an increase in contrast filter grade when printing?

[rpsawin]

I like XP2 but my experience with it is that the negatives are easily damaged. I always have an inordinate number of frames that are scratched. This is consistant even when I use different labs for processing. I also find the negatives difficult to evaluate for wet darkroom printing. On the other hand they scan nicely.

Since I do wet darkroom processing, and prefer to do my own developing, I am going to stop using any B&W C-41 films expect for non-critical uses.

Bob

[nwcanonman]

I like XP2 but my experience with it is that the negatives are easily damaged. I always have an inordinate number of frames that are scratched. This is consistant even when I use different labs for processing. I also find the negatives difficult to evaluate for wet darkroom printing. On the other hand they scan nicely.

Since I do wet darkroom processing, and prefer to do my own developing, I am going to stop using any B&W C-41 films expect for non-critical uses.

Bob
.............
Bob,
I'd try a good pro-lab with a roll of XP2 and see th results. I've used a TON of it and never had a scratched neg, using Photo-Vision in Oregon or even the local Ritz/Kits lab.
And yes I do make regular 8"x10"'s scanning the negs at home. But since you have you're own darkroom, use what works best :)

[saxshooter]

Re scratching, that was my experience with XP2 also. At the time I was using a Nikon LS1000 that didn't have digital ICE, but I'm sure current scanners can handle the dust and scratches OK.

I thought the benefit of using chromogenic black and white film was to easily get it processed at your neighborhood lab. But if I had to send it out at a "pro" lab and the costs associated with that, I'd rather have a small set of B&W chemistry at home and a couple of tanks and do it myself, using regular black and white film. For me, shooting black and white film goes hand in hand with permanence -- I'd want it to last (dyes fade, silver halide doesn't).

If I were to scan black and white, then I'd rather just shoot color neg and do black and white conversions in Photoshop (most basic method using monochrome channel mixer). Some of you may be offended by this suggestion, but you would be surprised to know that much of the black and white photojournalism you see in the news magazines today are made on digital cameras (color) and converted to black and white! Most use Fred Miranda's black and white conversion tools.