Ilford XP2 Super C41 chromagenic film - comments please?

Hi all,

 

<p>

 

I would like any user comments on Ilford XP2 Super C41 chromagenic film.

I know this film is not available in 4x5 but I was wondering if anyone has

used this in 120?

 

<p>

 

It is supposed to scan well and apparently has exceptionally fine grain with

the more exposure it gets. Highlights as supposed to show pure graduations

of tone with little or no grain. Is this true?

 

<p>

 

How does it print, printed traditionally?

 

<p>

 

Any and all comments and suggestions are welcome.

 

<p>

 

Thanks

 

<p>

 

Kind regards

 

<p>

 

Peter Brown

 

<p>

 

--

Some days you are the bug - some days you're the windscreen!

I used this film mostly at higher speeds in 35mm format. It is

excellent in contrasty lights, like concerts and theatre. It also

pushes well. Grain is very small but not among the sharpest. I print

it normally on multigrade paper with excellent results, but it prints

different from ordinary b&w films. You just have to get used to it.

Regards, www.janez-pelko.com

I second Janez's comments. For making large prints from 120, I find

T-max 100 and/or Tech Pan much better in 120 sizes.

Peter,

 

<p>

 

I have used XP2 Super in 120 size when I did not have time to process

film myself, and figured that lab processing the chromogenic film was

more palatable to me than standard black and white.

 

<p>

 

Grain is extremely fine. Tonality is different than with standard

black and white film. It is hard to explain how it is different, but I

think you will see it if you expose a roll, especially if you expose a

roll of HP5+ alongside it. To give you an idea of what I mean, my

favorite image with this film is of a small island in the center of a

pond, taken early in the morning with lots of fog, and the sunrise

just starting to peer through the cloud cover. It just worked great

for that image. XP2 Super is not very contrasty, and you can't do any

post-processing procedures on it, such as selenium toning, or chromium

intensification.

 

<p>

 

This is entirely subjective, but I think XP2 Super is sharper than

T-Max 400CN, and better for working in the traditional darkroom. The

color is closer to what you are used to with standard films. The Kodak

version has an orange base, like a color film. Perhaps it is

psychological, but I just don't like that orange base.

 

<p>

 

Try pairing XP2 Super with Ilford MGIV or Oriental VC paper.

One great application for this film is portraiture. The chromogenic

films are becoming very popular in the U.S. for weddings. The tonal

gradation is flattering for photos of people, and the wide latitude

makes it perfect for weddings -- you will get detail in the black

tuxedo and the white dress.

 

<p>

 

I have done some architecture with it. Not bad, but neither XP2 Super

nor T-Max 400CN have the acutance of a standard black and white film.

For what its worth, my favorite black and white film for architecture

is HP5+. However, if you have a very contrasty scene, the XP2 Super

could be a good choice.

I agree with most of the above. The grain (such as it is) is very

fine, but "mushy". This film has very smooth tonal gradations,

handles highlights very well, but seems to have very little edge

effects. (High resolution but low apparent acutance - "fine" but

not "sharp".) All of this adds up to a film that is (in my opinion)

wonderful for most portraits and other "soft" scenes, but not the

best for most landscapes and architecture. This is based on my

experience with XP-1, XP-2, & XP-2 Super in 35mm and 120. It used to

be available in 4x5 (maybe it still is?) but I've never tried it in

sheet film. It's definitely worth a try.

 

<p>

 

Cheers!

I have found XP2super to be an excellent film when down rated to 200

or 100 ei for a wide range of subjects. Maintains good highlight as

well as shadow detail. I agree it may not be as sharp as Delta 100

or Acros, but I find the graduation between tones to be pleasing for

porraits. It also prints well with traditional materials, that

latitude in ei gives you a lot of options on how to interpret the neg.

Thanks for all your responses,

 

<p>

 

The consensus seems to be that it is worth using for portraits or subjects

where the "softness" will help the subject or at least not detract from it.

 

<p>

 

It sounds like it may be worth giving it a try for some portraiture.

 

<p>

 

Kind regards

 

<p>

 

Peter Brown

Very small grain, alright, but not very sharp. Too mushy for my

taste, so I am not using it anymore.

Chromogenic B+W Film does not have grain at all. Like every normal

color film, chromogenic film builds dye clouds in the color

developer. All the silver grain is removed in the bleachfix. Those

dye clouds are more fuzzy than conventional silver grain and do not

benefit from condensor heads in the same way.

 

<p>

 

Since chromogenic B+W film resembles color negative film in many

ways, it has less long term stability, too.

Hello-

 

As someone who scans my negatives for inkjet printing, I find Ilford XP2 Super unrivaled for scanning. Beautiful 13x19 prints the equal or better than 8x10 prints from scanned silver based negatives. With 120 format the results are amazingly crisp and detailed, with tonal range far superior to any silver based film. I rarley shoot anything else these days.

I shot XP2 for years, until I converted to 220. Then I switched to

T400CN; then Kodak discontinued that in 220. So then I

switched to PortraBW220.

 

For scanning on the Imacon, (that's all i do; no wet darkroom), it

is to me, FAR superior to traditional BW films. Incredible tonal

range, latitude like no other, and creamy highlights.

 

I've not shot Tri-X (or others) since the mid-90's.

 

The Kodak and Ilford products are about the same to me. Both

are great. Just a drag that XP2 is not available in 220.

 

-Mark Tucker, http://marktucker.com

XP1 used to be available in 4x5...I used it now & then for architectural shots when longevity wasn't really an issue. Too bad it was a chromogenic film, it handled contrast really well. I still have a box in my desk, exp. date 1/2000...'course it hasn't been in a refrigerator, so it's really sort of trash now.....I'm gonna cross process it sometime....

I find XP-2s as sharp as Agfapan 100/Rodinal, and sharper than TMax100/TMax or Pan F/Rodinal. It is, however, difficult to focus the enlarger because of the extreme fineness of grain. Wonder if that's why some posters seem to think that it isn't sharp?