Ilford XP2,how good/bad is it?

<i>Scratches - These are caused by dodgy roller transport

processing - go to a pro-lab where they use dip and dunk </i><p>

My comment regarding scratches includes post-processing handling.

It has a delicate surface. I do get my dip and dunk processed, but

I found out early on that you have to be a bit more careful with it

than other films.<p>

Regarding the flame war, well, who cares?

I've been using the Ilford chromogenic film in its successive

incarnations since they began making it. It isn't best if you only get

machine prints on color paper, unless your lab happens to have a Fuji

Frontier machine, but if you have decent technique and make your own

prints in a real darkroom, the combination of XP-2 Super and Leica

lenses will produce 16x20s that rival medium format.

You havn't answered my question Victor.You started this by being rude

about Phil.

bmitch@home (!) FWIW, I absolutely agree with the

gutsier/creamier comment and also about the problem with

focusing under the enlarger becuase of the lack of grain. Also,

chromogenic films in general tend to need grade 3.5 in my

experience rather than the nominal grade 2 that people tend to

develop their standard b+w film to print on.

Traditional B&W film is extremely expensive to have processed around

my area, and my developing tank has been dry for 30 years and I

intend for it to stay that way. I used XP-2, XP-2Super, T400CN, BW+,

and Portra B&W. Of all those films, only the last two could I depend

on decent results from machine processing on color paper; the rest I

needed to pay my pro-lab extra to hand-coddle or else print on B&W

paper. So the only truly C-41 B&W's are Kodak's BW+ and Portra.

That said, I have asked my lab to simply turn the color saturation

down to "zero" on the scanner for some color negs and the results are

pleasing in most cases. I do not agree that all 400 B&W films are

the same. The chromogenics (C-41) seem to possess a much broader

tonal range and I like them much better than any traditional B&W I've

ever used, going back several decades. Either the grain or the

contrast range of the "real" B&W films disappointed me, or would have

forced me to do my own developing and printing, which I absolutely

abhor.

EEY PHIL KNEEN:

I DID A LITTLE RESEARCH ON YOU ON THE WEB. NOT ONLY ARE YOU NOT A

PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER, AS YOU CLAIM, BUT YOU'RE A CENTRAL HEATING

ENGINEER. I SUPPOSE IT'S BETTER THAN CLEANING TOILETS, BUT NOT BY

MUCH.

FOR YOUR INTEREST, HERE'S WHAT IT SAYS ABOUT YOU ON THE WEB.

Phil Kneen from Braddan in the Isle of Man has twice been runner-up

in the Isle of Man Centre Road Racing Championship, in the Manx Grand

Prix he finished seventh in the 1984 Junior and 1985 Senior Races. A

central heating engineer, married to Margaret with two daughters

Sarah and Katie, he has ridden in the TT since 1990.

Hi, Karl:

<p>

You asked for XP2 examples. I've been shooting Ilford XP2 and CN400

for a while and in photonet <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/">here</a> I keep pictures you can

see.

<p>

Please keep in mind that this is strictly amateur work so that not

all of the obvious defects can be readily attributed to the kind of

film but to my fault(s). However, I agree that printed results from

an average lab could be difficult to accurately anticipate: I also

shoot slides and they usually render right the images I anticipated

while shooting or extremely close. This is specially so concerning

tone rendering, of course.

<p>

These photos have the minimun of additional work other than the

lab's. In most cases they have been only "autobalanced" with

Microsoft Photo Editor while scanning with a table top scanner. In

summary these are nearly raw results and could possibly be of

interest to you because of it. After going through knowledgable dark

room work they should look a lot better (or so I hope). In fact the

sepia printed versions look noticeably better already though only

machine produced in the lab.

<p>

I have also noted that results are more consistent after I began

rating the film at ISO 250.

<p>

The scratches problem has also attacked me. It shows in the form of

black spots of varying shape, size and location. I originally blamed

the lab because I carefully checked my cameras several times and

haven't been able to find any probable cause. But I have never

experienced the same problem with other emulsions though all my

photos are processed by the same 1-hour lab.

<p>

Karl, I'll be happy if this work serves any purpose of your interest.

<p>

Regards.

<p>

-Iván

I find I have to use graded paper to get a good print with XP2.

Printing on VC paper doesn't work for me. Comments? (Of course, the

best negative is the one with the scratches on it!)

Hector.Have a look at a Manx telephone book.How many Kneen's can you

count? According to you I was winning world class motorcycle races

when I was 13 years old! YOU FOOL!!!!!

01624 842862/islandlighthouse@hotmail.com

<p>

Give them a call Hector,maybe you could ask them if you can

commission me for some work?

Everyone quit your bitching. Go shoot some film instead.

<p>

I don't care for XP2 Super, I think Kodak's 400CN is beautiful. I

have not tried the new Portra stuff. I suppose there is an archival

issue, but who's gonna care when your dead?

Funny, I also did a google search for Phil Kneen and came up with the

TT racer. I assumed I had simply turned up another Phil Kneen. Why

assume someone's a liar?

<p>

As for film being all alike or not, I think it's a matter of

application. For the kind of photography I do, just about anything

will do so long as it has reasonable colours and doesn't cost much.

For my Bombay slums project I shot around 250 rolls of film. Since I

was doing it on my own dollar, I used E100 because it's really cheap,

and had it processed in India, because it's really cheap. I wouldn't

say that all colour slide film is the same, in fact it obviously

isn't, but for my use the finer aspects of colour are not very

important. If I was doing fashion or product photography, I would

obviously be more pernickety.

<p>

If I was going to be doing B&W photography, I'd probably choose the

film for similar practical reasons - cost, ease of processing and

scanning. The finer details don't interest me simply because they're

just not important to documentary photography, IMO. What counts there

is the human or descriptive content of the picture, not the signature

of the film.

Well not XP2 for a start,it's crap......no,only joking!I use Fuji

neopan 400 for b/w,but only because I get it for 99p($us 1.50?)a

roll.When you shoot upto 20 rolls of film a day you use whatever is

cheapest.B/w 400 (HP5,TriX,Tmax,etc)are pretty much the same.

The only reason I don't use Chromogenic b/w film is because it is the

work of the dark-one and I fear change.......and I can only dev/print

black and white.

<p>

That,above,is what I wrote.Let's look at the KEY PHRASES:-

<p>

only joking!

<p>

pretty much the same

<p>

I fear change

<p>

I can only dev/print b/w

<p>

All aimed at one person and that was Karl.He took them with the

honesty and humour intended.

<p>

By the way,do a google search on Father christmas,you'll find there's

more than one.

Everybody says it.Try a roll. 1 is enough. 1 is too many.

My printer hates it.I hate it. I use Ilford everywhere else...

B/w is my main area of creativity.The Kodak CN films way better.

More possibilities....Printed one photo 20x24,looks like large format.

The XP-2 at Enprint 4"x6" looks like bad original Minox format....

It does seem Phil is being attacked unreasonably for his opinion.

However it is wrong. Saying, for example that Tri-X is (chunky grain,

extreme latitude, probably the most forgiveable film exposure and

processing wise) at all similar to Tmax, which though extremely fine

grained (for 400ISO) has very narrow latitude and is not at all

forgiving is simply ludicrous........

jason

I use and print both. The differences are very small. Somebody's

doing something wrong with your XP2.

While I do think some of the responses to Phils opinion is uncalled

for, he is wrong. To say TriX (chunky grain, extreme exposure

latitude, probably the most forgiving film processing and exposure

wise) is anything like Tmax (very fine grained, short exposure

latitude and very finicky in processing and exposure), would be like

saying 'Leica or Lomo - take your pick'..........

Right,for those with learning difficulties,I will say this one last

time.

<p>

ALL 400asa black and white film is,printed in a

newspaper,magazine,book,website,poster,etc,etc,etc,company

brochure,catalogue,cd cover,etc,etc,etc,etc.....PRETTY MUCH THE SAME.

Phil: Of course we believe you, sorry about the foot. Took the wrong

line again at Bradden Bridge, is it?.................

The pro photo hsop I use occassionally doesn't like to print XP-2.

Their prints have more color variation with XP-2 than any other lab

and T400CN or 400+B/W.

<p>

Here are some photos with both films:

<p>

XP-2 (with Kiev 88/80mm)

http://www.photo.net/photo/269984

http://www.photo.net/photo/269991

<p>

T400CN (with Leica CL/40mm)

http://www.photo.net/photo/320408

http://www.photo.net/photo/320409

http://www.photo.net/photo/331082

http://www.photo.net/photo/320402

http://www.photo.net/photo/320407

I've just decided that Phill has offended me. (or not) I've also

decided that he can make it up to me by flying me to The Isle for the

TT, put me up for the duration, make sure I get all the access I need,

and feed me three squares a day. That would make me feel better, I'm

sure!!! Seriously though, I am jelous of you, Phill. On the top of my

"to do before I die list" is the Isle of Man TT... What was this thread

about again?

But Phil, Karl didn't ask what film was best for "ALL 400asa black

and white film is,printed in a

newspaper,magazine,book,website,poster,etc,etc,etc,company

brochure,catalogue,cd cover,etc,etc,etc,etc.....PRETTY MUCH THE

SAME". Gee, what if he wanted to use it for some other purpose than

what you want to use it for. If he, for example wanted a film to

give him the best 16X20" fibre base exhibition print - THEY'RE PRETTY

MUCH ALL THE SAME would be really bad advice. If you're going to

make recommendations with specific end results in mind you should

state those as well. Don't you think.

I started using XP1 about 15 years ago then progressed to XP2 and now

CN400 so I'll say a few words based on experience. First of all why

would you want to shoot XP2/CN400 when "better" films with wider

tonal range such as TMX, TX, Delta, etc., exists? XP2 is

particularly good at retaining shadow details and suppressing

highlights in high contrast scenes. This is the same reason why at

times I choose to use color print film over color slides - to contain

contrasty scenes. XP2 is the kind of film that gives good results

practically no matter what. However it does not have the tonality of

TX nor the smoothness of TMX but it is practically ideal sans the

free lunch. Don't use it for low contrast scene else it will come

out flat. TMY will be better for low key shots. I have never used

CN400 in the wet printing but did print XP1/XP2 regulary. I would

use grade 3 and not enlarge beyond 11x14. The dyes will not allow a

decent print beyong 11x14. I have printed XP1 12 years later and

noticed no deteration of the dyes. Today I prefer CN400 in a film

scanner and machine proofs. CN400 scans better than TMX and much

better than TX. If you have a meterless M2, M3, IIIf or whatever

then CN400 is a gem of a film. Shoot it at asa 200 for best

results. If you find yourself having to do an outdoor event middle

of the day and the thought of using direct fill gives you nausea then

shoot CN400. Give it a try.