I use XP2 Super. Am I a true photographic enthusiast?

[evan_parker]

I have recently "discovered" Ilford XP2 Super, and I'm quite pleased

with the way the prints turn out on black and white paper: grainless

and very creamy, perfect for potraiture. But I have one problem: It

just isn't REAL black and white film. I've always prided myself on my

film developing technique, and even though I run the photo lab that I

develop my C-41 film at, I just don't feel nearly as involved in the

process.

 

I guess, in a way, this question stems from the film vs. digital

debate, i.e., the distance a photographer allows themselves from the

post-exposure side of photography, the darkroom, the tanks and the

trays and the sloshing chemicals. Part of the reason I love black and

white is because I control every single part of it. If something is

wrong, it is because I mixed a chemical incorrectly, exposed a

negative badly, or just plain forgot to do something. XP2 takes a

pretty large part of the chain away from me. Then again, isn't a

photograph about the subject matter? If a photo is truly eye-catching

and conveys a message, does it matter how it was recorded? Why not use

something that offers the photographer more convenience?

 

Now, I'm not asking anyone to make up my mind for me. I'm just

wondering if there are others that might have a comment on what I've

been thinking about recently, both the traditionalists and the "new

wave" photographers.

 

Thanks for your time.

[david_nebenzahl]

Yer out, buddy. Pack up your stuff and don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.

 

D "member of the Analog Film Club" N

[sk_arts]

<<member of the Analog Film Club>>

 

The CCD is an analog device :::smerks:::

[s._fisher]

Do you do the prints yourself? IMHO B&W tends to be a little pointless unless you develop the prints yourself, as the labs usually reduce the contrast to a nice, non-objectionable level. I've had labs do some prints before and you can't tell the difference between one that was with a yellow and one with a red filter. Maybe you can talk some labs into your vision a bit though (for extra dough). I have to admit that developing film is about as boring as it gets.

[david_nebenzahl]

Well, "smerk" this, pal: the CCD is an analog device, but everything downstream of it is <b>digital</b>.

[michael_gilday]

I've always maintained that photography is result-oriented; it's about actually taking pictures. Ideally, those will be (at least) technically adequate and aestethically pleasant. If, as you say, a photo is truly eye-catching and conveys a message, it doesn't *really* matter how it was recorded... but it can make a difference.

 

I shoot a lot of B&W, but no longer develop my own film, or produce my own prints. In part, this is because I simply don't have the room in a small apartment, but it's also because I can't get the consistency that the lab I use produces with their dip 'n' dunk machines. Then again, I don't claim to be a grand-master monochrome artiste, either. :)

 

I, too, like XP2, especially in 120, and the relative consistency of the C-41 process allows great repeatability with this film. This, to me, outweighs whatever benefits might have been derived from "custom" development with a water-bath, or N+ or N- development, or a high-acutance developer, or some other sort of traditional anal-retentive postexposure control.

 

By eliminating, as much as possible, uncertain development from the picture, I've eliminated one variable on the path to achieving the results I want, which leaves me free to concentrate on everything else: exposure, filtration, composition... I consider this a benefit. Others might not.

 

I really don't see how this is related to the digital-film debate at all...

 

B&W is about seeing texture and tonality. It doesn't really matter what you use to get there, so long as the results are worthwhile. Better a stunning picure taken with a P&S on XP2, developed in C-41, than a worthless snapshot with a Leica on TechPan in Microdol N-. :)

[peter_witkop]

I'll put in my $0.02 (USD), I'm sure many others will too... It's all about the results, the rest comes down to tools. If XP2 produces what you like, it's the right tool for the job. Photography is about seeing the image, and putting it onto film, and then to the print, or whatever final media you use (projected slide, web image, whatever), and being able to do it relatively consistantly, if not every single time. Understanding your materials, no matter what they are, are a big part of being able to do that, and doing your own darkroom work will definently help there. And not that I'm much of a digital person, infact I'm gravitating toward 4x5 traditional B&W more and more, but even digital photographers have a pretty good amount of post-exposure work that they do. It all comes down to finding the right tools for your vision and working style, be it 4x5 B&W (you can tell my preferance :o), or color digital images.

 

I could ramble on quit a bit about this, but I'll leave more space for others to, and since most people with an attention span similar to mine wouldn't read it all anyway, I'll just say this: in the end it's all about the images, the rest is getting there, as much fun as that may be. Ok, sometimes it's about getting there too, whatever way works for you :o)

 

Peter

[david_nebenzahl]

Since you've raised the question about XP2, all I can say is that up to now I've never considered using this film. Now I just might try it.

[gareth_harper]

Like any other film you have to work out it's strengths and weakneses.

If you print it yourself it is capable of stunning results, not to mention it's very easy to work with.

I currently use T-max100/400 Tri-X and yes I use XP2 as well.

[chris_waller]

What matters finally is the end result - the picture. How you get to

it isn't important providing it is the picture you intended. I use XP2

for portraiture on occasions and where the lighting may be

difficult. But the vast majority of my pictures are shot on

'conventional' b+w film. I like the involvement and the control it

gives me - and the range of materials available. Digital holds no

magic for me, but I am still, even after twent years, fascinated by

the 'alchemy' of b+w photography. One of my biggest concerns is

the durability of the image and the ease of its recovery. I

question whether the majority of the digital images taken today

will be recoverable in twenty years time. I have negatives which

are fifty years old but I can still recover the image using the

relatively simple means of the photographic enlarger. But, a

digital image stored on a disc - will that still be recoverable fifty

years hence?

[crackers_.]

In '93 you would have been a woos on the fringe. Today you're hardcore mainstream.

[Troll]

If you process your "regular B&W" films by inspection in developers hand-mixed from individual chemicals, then maybe I can see why you would feel that developing your XP-2 in C-41 is a step downward. But if you do them both by time/temperature, there is no reason to even think about it twice -- it ain't better or worse, just different.

[lachaine]

I've love B&W since I got my first SLR back in 1975. I haven't always been actively doing it myself though, but I did develop and print in my own apartment bathroom darkroom until the 80's. I wish I had stayed with it throughout, but family commitments, etc., you know. But I've nevertheless always been a keen observer and admirer of black & white photos.

 

In the past, I used Plus-X and Tri-X, and I dabbled in HP5. I love HP5 now. However, when I don't feel like developing myself (even though I've recently re-equipped myself for it), I use XP2 without reservation. I don't care if it's C-41 process. I look at its qualities as black & white film - and these are considerable. I'm still directly involved, because I then scan the negatives. I don't get quite the same satisfaction from it as having it done completely the traditional way, but it works, and it works well. I'm not sure I would feel the same way if I couldn't scan the negatives though.

[silent1]

<i>One of my biggest concerns is the durability of the image and the ease of its recovery. I question whether the majority of the digital images taken today will be recoverable in twenty years time. I have negatives which are fifty years old but I can still recover the image using the relatively simple means of the photographic enlarger. But, a digital image stored on a disc - will that still be recoverable fifty years hence?</i><p>

I don't think there'll be as much problem with durability of the media as all that -- CD/R media is more archival than aluminized replica pressed media, and about as durable as film stock in terms of environmental stress (less hurt by water, slightly more susceptible to oxidation and heat damage). There is, however, the issue that every ten years or so digital data has to be transferred to new media because the old media is no longer supported by working read/write hardware -- that problem now exists with the 9-track tape that recorded most of the NASA telemetry data from the 1970s, for instance.<p>

What I like about a silver image is that, not only is it archival in itself, but the positive image can be retreived with technology now more than two centuries old and well documented in a plethora of sources -- anything from gum bichromate and carbon gelatin printing, to salted paper, to albumen prints, to POP, to kallitype and cyanotype. Salted paper requires no chemicals more exotic than silver metal and nitric acid.<p>

Of course, the down side is that the low tech retrieval methods are most suitable for contact printing, but to me that's just another reason to move to larger negatives. Now if I could just find a dry plate emulsion or formula that was faster than, say, ISO 25...

[doug_bennett]

I also occasionally use XP-2, and have found that the negs print very, very nicely in the darkroom on silver paper (which is not true of the Kodak equivalent). My concern would be about the life of the negatives, since it is a C-41 process. I know that many color prints go ugly in a relativley short time. Maybe others can chime in: what can one expect in terms of life from C-41 negatives?

[barry_kenstler]

I've seen stunning results with conventional B&W, chromogenic, and digital media. Philosophically, I'm with the crowd that goes with using the technology that allows you to realize your vision. The only thing that I would add is that the look of chromogenic and conventional B&W films is noticeably different. I think this is primarily do to the fact that the chromogenics get finer grained with increased negative density and the conventionals are just the opposite. Underexposed chromogenics can have unsightly globs of grain in the shadow areas. On the other hand, properly exposed, the Caucasian skin tones they yield can be wonderfully creamy and porcelain-like.

[peter_witkop]

Just a quick response to the post above making mention about cdr's having good longevity, not always. This is an article regarding some tests done on consumer cd-r's, many were unreadable aftre two years. http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/7751

 

We (by we I mean those of us used to the longevity of traditional B&W) need to keep in mind that we have a very differant idea what "long archival life" means than many tech/computer people. And also (and I speak from experience as a former DB programmer) that many computer companies advertising makes many photo companies look _very_ honest straight forward ....

[evan_parker]

Mr. Kenstler,

 

You make an excellent point about the density of the negative in a chromogenic film and the apparent grain. It's always better, in my experience as a photo lab tech, to deal with negatives that have been heavily overexposed rather than negatives that have been underexposed even a stop or two.

 

Every few weeks we run the Aperion TrueBalance test negatives to calibrate our machines for color and density correction. This basically amounts to a Color test chart and the face of a Caucasian woman printed as underexposure, normal, overexposure, and "super-over" over exposure on different types of film stock. I, along with my Fuji SFA printer's scanner (pre-Frontier, sorry guys :) ), can make a print from a negative exposed by two or even more stops look virtually indistinguishable to prints made from normally exposed negs. I suppose this is why many photo companies put 800 speed film in their cameras. This is also probably why people who pull XP2 to 200 get even better results than those who shoot it at 400.

 

This is offtopic, but I have to rant. You know those "Jazz" and "Harmony" and other generic brand cameras at Wal-Mart and other grocery stores? They're actually pirtaed Kodak, Fuji, Konica and Agfa disposable cameras, loaded with the cheapest film money can buy (no printing on the rebates whatsoever, let alone DX codes) shut with duct tape and wrapped in a paper container. Not that anyone here would ever do this, but don't buy these. Spend the extra $1.

 

Last thing, I promise this time: Maybe it's just because I work on a Fuji printer, but I consistently get better results using Fuji films, especially Superia 400 and 800 films, over their Kodak equvialents. Anyone else experience this?

[daniel_neo]

Hey Evan,

 

I heard you can develop XP2 yourself with a true b/w developer known as Diafine. Has anyone done that here?

[lex_jenkins]

According to the reports I've read XP2 + Diafine = Waste of materials.

[kevin_michael]

Evan,

Regarding the re-use of disposable camera shells, I apllaud this practice. If they get used once more before ending up in a landfill, super. It mitigates the horribly wasteful nature of these cameras just a bit. One man's "piracy" is another's re-use in this case.

[dougmiles]

"It just isn't REAL black and white film. I've always prided myself on my film developing technique, and even though I run the photo lab that I develop my C-41 film at, I just don't feel nearly as involved in the process."

 

Sure it is! No color dyes or pigments in there at all. :-) And, if machine processing gives you that detached feeling, you can just pick up a home-process C41 kit and have at it!

 

I processed XP1 with Ilford's XP1 chemistry in my darkroom when it was still available, and often adjusted the time based on the lighting the roll had been exposed to. Push a bit or pull a bit... Would that feel real enough? I got lazy and just let the local lab do it now.

 

I sure do agree about the XP1 "look", which comes through smoothly even in 35mm. Love it; the prints are "real"ly nice!

[mark__5]

if it works for you then great! I personally wouldn't touch such confining crap, but that's my opinion.

and bill, please, please, give me a break!

[j.w.]

Evan;

 

So, you "just don't feel nearly as involved in the process", eh? That doesn't necessarily make you a heathen photographer. Henri Cartier Bresson was known to have his film and printing done by commercial lab.

 

In fact, the craftsmanlike tendency of state-side photographers is perhaps a bit more overt than, say, in Europe, where the focus has been more on the image itself than the artifact of the finished print - although there's always exceptions, too.

 

It may ultimately come down to the question of whether a photo is an abstract image file, capable of being displayed in a plethora of ways (chemical print, ink jet, CRT, 4-color offset press, etc), or if it is a physically finished, finely crafted object. I think this is where the "divide" is headed.

 

Perhaps photography is "big enough" to encompass both aspects; hopefully its practicioners are.

 

Finally, a bit off-topic, but CD-R and commercially pressed CD's use entirely different recording technology. Commercial CD uses aluminized pits and lands imbedded in clear plastic. It should be as archival as any thin, soft plastic optical media can be.

 

CD-R uses a light-sensitive, polarized dye layer. The data is recorded by altering the angle of polarization, which is subsequently sensed by reflection, during the read process. This technology, and any follow-on ones using the same concept (CD-RW, DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD-RAM, etc), are not nearly as stable. They are especially sensitive to heat and UV light. Think of their archivability as being similar to magnetic media in terms of environmental sensitivity.

[silent1]

<i>Finally, a bit off-topic, but CD-R and commercially pressed CD's use entirely different recording technology. Commercial CD uses aluminized pits and lands imbedded in clear plastic. It should be as archival as any thin, soft plastic optical media can be.<p>

 

CD-R uses a light-sensitive, polarized dye layer. The data is recorded by altering the angle of polarization, which is subsequently sensed by reflection, during the read process. This technology, and any follow-on ones using the same concept (CD-RW, DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD-RAM, etc), are not nearly as stable. They are especially sensitive to heat and UV light. Think of their archivability as being similar to magnetic media in terms of environmental sensitivity.</i><p>

 

Oh, that makes me feel really good about using CD-R media as system backups...<p>

 

I recall a considerable controversy a while back about "gold" music CDs, which sold for more than twice the price of regular aluminized ones on the claim that the gold reflective coating would outlast the aluminum by about ten times -- with aluminum good for "only" about ten years. I personally have CDs older than that, and they still play well enough my (admittedly somewhat damaged) ears can't tell the difference -- but if CD-R is that much worse than CD, I've been misinformed somewhere along the way; I understood the recordable surface wasn't subject to oxidation as the aluminum layer in a pressed CD is, but didn't realize that other conditions besides the recording or erasing laser could so readily disturb the data.<p>

 

It's almost enough to make one want to bid on the next separation camera that comes up on that auction site...