Ilford XP2,how good/bad is it?

[karl5]

What is Ilford XP2 like? I have been told that people don't like it because it has no tone and horrible to print,etc.I was also told by a pro' that no other pro's use it.

 

<p>

 

Does anyone have any input on this and examples of photographs shot on XP2?

 

<p>

 

Many thanks,Karl

[karl5]

or any other chromogenic b/w films?

[Niels - NHSN]

Read this <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/010427.htm">article</a> by Van Riper.

[phil_kneen]

Karl,don't fall for the old 'if the pro's don't use it it must be

crap'thing.Buy a roll,do a few test shots of your favorite

subject,get it developed and decide for yourself if you like it.

 

<p>

 

"It's not the rod that catches the fish"

[karl5]

So what film do you use Phil?

[phil_kneen]

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.

 

<p>

 

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.

[Spearhead]

I use XP2 occasionally. Like all films, it has positive and

negative attributes. On the positive side, there is little grain,

it can be processed anywhere, it scans well, and it has good

tonality. On the negative side, you can't control the results the

way you can with a traditional black and white film, it scratches

easily, and it is supposedly non-archival. If you really want good

results, you should print it properly on black and white paper (or

scan it and do an inkjet print) rather than getting the rather

sickly color you will get with machine prints. (Why someone would

spend thousands of dollars on a camera and then regularly get

machine prints is something I don't understand anyway.)<p>

 

<i>examples of photographs shot on XP2</i><p>

 

Here's an example, shot on XP2 rather than the current XP2 Super.<p>

 

<center>

<img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/womanw.jpg"><br>

<i>Woman Working, XP2, Copyright 1999 Jeff Spirer</i>

</center>

[victor_s.]

Another boneheaded remark from Phil Kneen. Ignore him. He's dead

wrong: all 400 B+W are NOT the same. There are dramatic difference

in tone, range, and grain.

 

<p>

 

I suggest you go to Photo.Net or Photographyreview.Com for well-

researched assessments of B+W films.

[ron_buchanan2]

The article pointed to by Niels H. S. Nielsen is a good article.

However, if you have access to a good lab with a Fuji Frontier

machine, the orange film base of the Kodak films looks more like a

liability than a benefit. I started using B&W chromogenic last year

after buying a new house and putting my darkroom in boxes (some day

it'll come out). At this point, I can only imagine how much more

difficult it'll be to print from the couple of rolls of Kodak Select

(orange base) I've shot than the dozens of rolls of XP2 (neutral

base) I've done (of course, if I were to use graded paper rather that

the multi-grade paper I use, it would probably be easier).<p>The

4x6's I've gotten out of the Frontier have shown little difference

between the two. Because of the way the Frontier works, a

knowledgable operator can easily print B&W images with no discernable

color cast (and I'm fairly certain that they can do this from color

negs or even color slides). (And they're some of the best damn

machine prints I've ever seen.)<p>If you have a darkroom, I think it

would certainly be worth your while to give it a try and see what

comes of it.

[phil_kneen]

"Another boneheaded remark from Phil Kneen. Ignore him. He's dead

wrong: all 400 B+W are NOT the same. There are dramatic difference in

tone, range, and grain."

 

<p>

 

Right Victor,I could post 4 photo's taken on 4 different 400 asa b/w

and could tell me which was which? Victor,there's a website I think

you should visit.....www.ineedtogetoutmore.com

[terry_butler]

Phil Kneen: I've watched this forum a few weeks and only now feel an

urge to participate. You're wrong, truly, about B+W films. There

are dramatic and subtle differences in emulsions and composition

which enhance or detract from images. You're of course entitled to

your opinion; but on a purely objective basis you're wrong in the

extreme. I hasten to add that your second comment is nasty and

spiteful -- entirely out of line with the informative approach of

this forum.

[karl5]

Victor.Phil posted a humourous,lighthearted and honest reply and you

just insult him,why?Most people I have spoken to have said the same

as Phil,400iso black and white film IS all pretty much the same and

it's all in the printing.

[thomas_nutter]

Another thing to keep in mind with these "CN" films like XP2 is

that they are not archival like properly processed traditional B/W

films. Rumor has it that as much as a 10-15% loss in negative

density can occur over a ten-year period. Unless this type of film

is absolutely neccessary for some reason, I would stick with the

regular stuff.

[phil_kneen]

Children,children! If you think I give a toss what you think about me

you are very much mistaken.I make a living out of photography and not

out of selling 400 asa black and white film.I give not one iota about

the 'subtle differences in tone'or 'defraction indexes'.The magazines

and newspapers I sell to buy my work because it is exellent

photography.If you don't like what I say then don't read it.

 

<p>

 

Some of you lot are sad beyond belief!

[john_fleetwood]

I can't get past the scatches that every processor I've tried puts in

the stuff.

[gerald_widen]

Karl, I am very impressed with XP2 Super. Beautiful creamy tones. I

have had over a dozen rolls developed and not one scratch anywhere. I

have found it to be a very forgiving film. Even in bright sun I get

details in the highlights and shadows. I don't know if it is true but

have heard many times over the internet how it is easier to scan than

traditional B&W. I have seen beautiful prints from my processor done

in their traditional darkroom from this film. I have a lot of examples

on photo.net scanned from 4X6 prints (obviously not the best

method)that I can email you since I can't get on photo.net now to

provide a link.

[douglas k.]

Regarding the debate about ISO 400 B&W films -- stating that all of

them are "pretty much the same" is like saying that all red wines

taste alike. Even Tri-X and HP5+, which are often cited as giving

very similar results, appear different to my eyes -- and yes, I'd bet

a brick that I could pick out prints made from one or the other in a

stack of 8x10s.

 

<p>

 

And I agree with the comment -- made by Jeff, I think -- that the main

disadvantage of the chromogenics is the impossibility of adjusting

development to suit the contrast range of the original scene. I only

use conventional B&W films, and virtually never rate them or develop

them according to the manufacturers recommendations. But, if you are

only shooting small quantities of film, and do not process yourself,

this may not be an issue.

[ken4]

RE: all 400 b&w film is the same.

 

<p>

 

From my limited experience, I noticed that if you're developing film

yourself, the non t-grain film tends to give better negatives (i.e

more detail) This is through usage of tmax 400 and tri-x.

[preston_merchant]

Ilford XP2 and other chromogenic black & white films (my results are

in line with Van Riper's) are good for proofs--when you have to hand

out a bunch of photos to a group, who might then purchase a real B&W

print produced the traditional way.

 

<p>

 

The Ilford is notoriously hard to control, frame by frame, at the

lab. Some shots will be brown, some purple, with no apparent

rationale. Kodak's C-41 B&W films are more uniform.

 

<p>

 

Shoot chromogenic B&W when ease of production and distribution are

the overriding concerns.

[craig_smith5]

I'm with Phil on this.He did say "pretty much the same",NOT "exactly

the same".

[phil_kneen]

There's just no telling them Craig!

 

<p>

 

I'm stuck at home with a broken foot,given the choice of watching 15

to 1,countdown and old series of Startrek OR winding-up this bunch of

geriatrics? I'll go for the latter(and scan some 400asa black and

white negs)!!!

[gerald_widen]

<IMG

SRC="http://gallery.consumerreview.com/photography/photo_critique/pict

ures/bwrailsleep(2).jpg"WIDTH="556" HEIGHT="368"> <P> This is an

example scanned from a 4X6 (obviously at the mercy of the printer).

The negative itself is sharp with beautiful tones.

[stephen_jones4]

Scratches - These are caused by dodgy roller transport

processing - go to a pro-lab where they use dip and dunk and

you'll be fine. XP2 is a fine film that prints very easily in my

darkroom and exhibits very good sharpness. The only real worry

is that you can get reticulation if they heat dry it too quickly: again

the answer is to use a good lab.

Try rating it at 250: it's a fine film. Pro's always say that everything

other than the stuff they use is crap - I used to tell people that tri-x

was the only b+w film - worth using it's a lot of nonsense.

[gerald_widen]

<IMG

SRC="http://gallery.consumerreview.com/photography/viewfinder/pictures

/takeout.jpg"WIDTH="507" HEIGHT="364"> <P> Here is another example.

Also flat bed scanned. Steve is right this film is best rated at 250.

In this shot the lighting was bad and was exposed with a 35/2 wide

open at 1/30 sec. I don't use a meter but judging from the density of

the neg was rated around 600. You get a little more grain at that

speed.

[wilhelm]

XP-2 is "Gutsier," while Kodak is "creamer." My XP-1 negatives from

the 1970s make prints today identical to the first ones (dispells

lask of archival myth). Because the Chromogenics have such great

latitude you don't need to vary development for N-1, N+1, etc. They

produce sharper, less grainy negatives than any other 400 rated film

(I rate it at 250, which is 1/3 stop faster than Tri-X), with far

greater exposure latitude. For me the only downside is difficulty

focussing in the enlarger because the grain is virtually absent. I

don't know why anyone would use anything else.