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

[ole_tjugen]

In attempt to get back on topic, I'll admit to being one of those hopeless nerds: I process my large format negatives by inspection, in chemicals mixed from raw chemicals... I do roll films by time/temperature, though.

 

But there are some things XP2 is very good at, and I don't hesitate a second when I need it. I probably wouldn't use it in LF - if they decided to make that size - since it's difficult to get C41 processed around here. But in the smaller sizes it is an exellent film! Besides, it saves me the trouble of finding the correct exposure and development for yet another film/developer combination...

[simon evans.]

Are you truly enthusiastic about your photography? Then you are a photographic enthusiast. So the cameras, films, paper etc you choose become less important than your photographs.

<br><br>

Do you like the results you get from XP2? If so, stick with it. You don't have to use it for all your work, you can keep stirring the chemicals with other films. After all, it's the result (and your vision) that counts.

<br><br>

I like developing my own films - I feel involved in the making of the negative just as I do the print - but am happy to use C-41 mono films now and then - usually for people photos or to get 6x4" prints quickly and painlessly with my <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=191078">Stylus Epic</a>. Pick the right tool for the job and don't get hung up on the mechanics. Surely convenience only cheapens one's art if it compromises the result.

[roger_hicks1]

To quote an Ilford expert who prefers to remain anonymous, "We make Delta 400 because we have to have a 'new technology' film, HP5 because our customers would kill us if we stopped, and XP2 for those who know what they are doing."

 

It's superb film -- I've just ordered 60 more rolls -- and if you feel bad about not processing it yourself, do what I do: buy a C-41 process kit.

 

Look in a few months in Shutterbug for an article by my wife Frances Schultz on making life easier in monochrome.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

[acearle]

Well, my US$0.02 worth (New Taiwan$0.68 worth) is this: I've been out of photography that virtually EVERY film available here is new to me. In B&W, Plus-X and Tri-X are not available here, what I can get are T-Max 100, Agfa APX-100, Ilford Pan 100, Ilford Delta 400, and XP2 Super (gotta try 'em all to get the feel for what they all do...life is more complicated with all the different films now).

 

I've been back shooting pictures for 2 months, have run 40-60 rolls or so through my camera, about half of them B&W and about 70% of those were XP2. I have good things to sat about XP2, and things I don't like. It definitely does better in a shot with a lot of contrast, I haven't enlarged anything appreciably yet, so I can't really say much about grain. Things I really like about it: The results if you have a shot with a lot of contrast. I have some gorgeous prints. There is an ever so slight color tint to the prints that I hate, but one of these days I'll finish building a darkroom and reprint the shots I like.

 

As I settle on what I will probably use most of the time in B&W, it is looking an awful lot like T-Max and APX in the ISO100 world. I really like Delta 400, but am now only shooting my second roll, so I dunno yet. I have a strange feeling that I will continue to use XP2 for a couple of reasons other than good results, one is quick turnaround for a full set of proofs.

 

I remember shooting a roll of Ilford something or other that was C41 in 1996, maybe two rolls. The prints came back from the lab sepia tones, the results were very good.

 

All in all, ALL of the modern films seem to have areas of major improvement, although I really miss my Tri-X :( and may have to order a case from the U.S. one of these days. As I play with XP2, I find that there are some things that it does exceptionally well.