xp2 looking antique?

i finally got my first roll of ilford xp2 developed at a local walgreens. i waited a long time to do this as i had my doubts about getting it processed at a box store. well it got the better of me so i did it and the results are confusing to me. my prints came back with the antique look to them not a true black and white print.the pictures have that old style looking feel to them.some actually do look good in that hue but that is not what i was looking for.i am kind of figuring it is the store processing that did this as i see in peoples posts their pics do not look this way.i cant post any pics yet as i am on the road on business.just thought i would run this by you guys . this has convinced me to definitely get my developing tanks and chemistry back online and start doing it myself.any thoughts would be appreciated.

thanks gary

If you mean a sepia look:

Printing neutral untinted BW on color paper is pretty close to a nightmare chore and unfortunatly color paper is all a box store has at hand. Their service, as comparably bad as it might be, is still a reasonably cheap way to get hold of some proofs.

While I did try out a small kit of XP1 developer back in the days I see no real sense in using it at home.- A drugstore C41 should be at least as good or bad. Homeprocessing silver film is more fun or more rewarding.

Dunno what else we are talking about. Wet darkroom printing? - DIY, if you like to.

If you fancy a hybrid workflow go for that... (I'd shoot digital, if I wanted a file, but yes scanning is the other reason besides drugstore processing to shoot XP2).

Did you get scans as well as prints? It would go to know if Jochen's theory is correct, - that it was a problem with incorrect paper.

I recently tried some XP2 and was happy with the results. I processed it at home but I've gotten good results with XTOL and regular B&W film as well so I don't know if I have a reason to use XP2 again given that it's a bit more expensive.

Yes it had that sepia bronze look to it.this is all I have available right now.i am presently searching out a scanner and then getting a couple of tanks and chemistry to do home developing.

It is not kodak paper they used but some sort of digital copy paper.ill be able to read the back of the paper tomorrow.

Under normal c41 processing be it at home or a photo lab this sepia look is normal? I have never shot xp2 before so this is all new to me.i did adjust it to black and white on my computer and the results are not bad to me. (I'll try to get some comparisons posted up tomorrow)

Thanks for your response and lol forward to hear what you think when I post a pic or two

Thanks gary

I use the Costco photo centers either here in Hawaii or in Washington state for proofing of both my scanned b/w work and in-camera b/w from a set of Fuji X-E1 cameras. The key to getting any sort of "normal" b/w is to have ANY FORM OF AUTO CORRECTION used by the processor OFF !! What one is receiving these days are pseudo b/w. If any of my "proofs" peak my interest, I will pay the small fortune for carbon ink prints from a lab.

I can get decent 11x14 b/w Costco prints with the auto correction off. Also, Costco makes it possible to dial in my monitor to the latest batch of paper they are using in their stores. About once a year they "reload" and inform me via email to recalibrate. . takes about 30 mins max. Both color & b/w work benefit.

Some who know my photos here on Pnet. will recognize I use what is called "Bandicot" toning. A cross between sepia and selenium. This tone is reproduce excellently in the Costco prints.

Your C-41 / XP2 negs should print OK, since they are dye clouds, not silver. This historic car was shot in 1982 on 35mm XP-2 but not scanned until about 5 years ago. An 11x14 hangs in my apartment. Aloha, Bill

The Kodak C41 films have the same orange mask as C41 color films, and mostly

print black and white on color paper. Color printers, even ones in box stores, can

adjust the color as desired, including sepia.

XP2, as I understand, does not have the orange mask.

Printers not expecting it won't balance for it, but from black to sepia

isn't all that far in color correction.

In any case, the color balance is in printing or scanning.

Yes it had that sepia bronze look to it.this is all I have available right now.i am presently searching out a scanner and then getting a couple of tanks and chemistry to do home developing.

It is not kodak paper they used but some sort of digital copy paper.ill be able to read the back of the paper tomorrow.

Under normal c41 processing be it at home or a photo lab this sepia look is normal? I have never shot xp2 before so this is all new to me.i did adjust it to black and white on my computer and the results are not bad to me. (I'll try to get some comparisons posted up tomorrow)

Thanks for your response and lol forward to hear what you think when I post a pic or two

Thanks gary

It might be a scanning problem. On my scanner software I can choose whether the film is negative or a positive, B&W or color. I believe that if I accidentally scan a B&W negative as a color negative, the resulting scan will have a sepia tone to it.

Glen may be right in that their process isn't set up to handle B&W properly since C41 is typically color.

Anyway, no, sepia not normal for XP2. The roll I shot was very crisp in terms of tone. Black was black and white was white.

Did you get scans as well as prints? It would go to know if Jochen's theory is correct, - that it was a problem with incorrect paper.

The paper used was obviously stock colour paper. Not 'incorrect' paper, just what you automatically get if you put any film through the C41 process at a minilab.

The OP could possibly have paid several times the cost to get the film printed on true B&W silver-gelatine paper at a pro/custom lab (and they still can), but they obviously didn't, and got non-neutral prints.

On my Nikon film scanner, I have got both RGB and B&W scans from different XP2 images on the same strip of film.

I think the scanner software (from Nikon) "kind of runs home to mama" when it's not sure what is going on;)

here negatives 34 and 35 on the same roll of XP2 - a little too automatic:

I've never made photographic enlargements, only scans.

the second picture jdmvw posted is what all of mine show to be.so in the end it is their scanner just assuming the picture is a color negative . i dont mind the sepia tones on some of the pics and i do have the option of cleaning it up a bit.it is amazing that you never stop learning about things.you have to learn and remember all the little nuances .its a trip so to speak even at my age.

thanks again for explaining this -- gary

Every year, we get photo Christmas cards made, as did my parents since I was young.

(I still try to get them done by a place that uses photographic (light sensitive) paper,

though I am sure that they are exposed through scanned lasers.)

One year, before the digital conversion, we decided for a black and white picture,

using the somewhat new Kodak C41 process black and white film.

In the end, I had the cards printed with a sepia tone, though not as much as the

one above, which looks closer to red. Partly that was to protect against the opposite,

of coming out a greenish tone, getting the balance off the other way.

I think now, though, I should have gone to a true black, or close to it.

(The cards have a colorful greeting on the side.)

I SUSPECT that you're dealing with a Minilab just not knowing what to do when it encounters a film with a(more or less) colorless base. It's not the the store or operator's fault, per se-it's likely just a matter of this being the first roll of XP2 Super the operator has ever seen. I'm honestly surprised that your local WalGreens still even does it on-site-the ones around here pulled out 3-4 years ago, and even at that probably 90% or better of their business was disposables and the bulk of the left over was Kodak or Fuji color negative.

The now-discontinued Kodak T400CN(and its predecessor, Portra 400 B&W) had a conventional orange mask so that they would print to a true B&W since the minilab would be expecting it. XP2 Super fundametally has a bit of a different target audience-it's always been intended as a film that could be processed in conventional C-41 chemistry(which gives certain reproducibility advantages, as well as access to inexpensive and readily available processing) but then printed on conventional B&W paper. As scanning has become more popular, it has advantages in that it can be scanned with Digital ICE.

I suspect nothing is wrong, and if you scanned at home or printed on an enlarger it would be fine.

It is easy to get sepia with T400CN or the other Kodak versions if you want it.

When I had a roll printed (a few shots) at a minilab, I just asked for a little more

red, they put in the number, and it came out nice and sepia toned. They didn't

know until the prints came out that they were black and white negatives.

I did have a package of actual sepia toner when I was younger.

Thanks for you reply's. I think I'll just send it out to a real photo lab next time

Thanks Gary

i finally got my first roll of ilford xp2 developed at a local walgreens. i waited a long time to do this as i had my doubts about getting it processed at a box store. well it got the better of me so i did it and the results are confusing to me. my prints came back with the antique look to them not a true black and white print.the pictures have that old style looking feel to them.some actually do look good in that hue but that is not what i was looking for.i am kind of figuring it is the store processing that did this as i see in peoples posts their pics do not look this way.i cant post any pics yet as i am on the road on business.just thought i would run this by you guys . this has convinced me to definitely get my developing tanks and chemistry back online and start doing it myself.any thoughts would be appreciated.

thanks gary

Back in the 1980's when I worked for a photo lab and was able to get processing for free (and discounted printing) I found that XP1 printed on typical color neg paper tended to have a sepia tone, which I took as a ballpark color correction from printers who apparently were not familiar with it. The ONLY way I was able to get true "black and white" images was to print the stuff myself in my home lab. Just send your negs to a B&W lab (if you can find one) if you don't want to do it yourself. FWIW, I used to experiment with processing XP1 in E6 chemistry and would get greenish-gray monochrome transparencies.

this is a pic of a dog house on an abandoned property in virginia where my mom lives.this is off my scan disk form walgreens processing.as stated before i never shot xp2 black and white and was hesitant about getting processed locally at a box store.i just couldn't wait any longer.i can change them over to black and white on my computer and they dont look bad,even some of them in this sepia tone dont look bad either.gives them that old time feel i truly enjoy.i do have 2 more rolls of 35mm and 2 more 120 rolls to shoot and i probably will ship them out for processing and a photo lab from now on.thanks for all your input - gary[ATTACH]1320829[/ATTACH]

Yep, that looks familiar from my experience of having XP1 printed on color negative paper.

thanks for the feedback.in the end it is the paper they are using assuming it is c41 process and the use of a color print paper on their end.

good to know- gary

Just about everyone now, especially minilabs, scans and then prints the scan.

It might be done in one machine, and yes usually print on color paper.

I believe that there are a small number of machines around using real

black and white paper.

In the cases that I printed JPGs scanned in black and white, which as far as I

know have equal values in the R, G, and B channel, with the results looking

pretty close to black and gray. I am not sure how the machines are

calibrated.