Ilford XP2 Super

[johnnycake_.1]

I do find Ilford C-41 particularly unsatisfying for things that are green, or "earthen" in color.

 

A little "duotone" does seem to help a great deal.

 

The first image is a straight "commercial" scan. The second image has been "duotoned" in Photoshop.<div></div>

[johnnycake_.1]

>>><div></div>

[fad gadget]

I agree, duotone is the way to go with XP2.

I have the negs scanned when processed, then print at home. I'm actually thinking about

getting the Epson V700, looks pretty good so far.

 

Cheers, KF

[todd frederick]

I'm not sure the problem is with the XP-2. You can do what you displayed with any film using Photoshop. It all depends if you want a cold tone or a warm tone image.

 

I often have C-41 Chromogenic film processed by labs (no prints ever!) and I always need to adjust them in PS. That a normal step in the process.

[r s]

Having just shot my first roll of XP2 Super I am pretty excited about this C-41 film. <br>I agree that a bit of duo-tone helps a lot in post-processing.

<br><br>

<center>

<img src="http://www.pbase.com/rsilfverberg/image/68179910.jpg">

<br>Leica M3, Summicron 50/2, XP2 Super<br><br>

<img src="http://www.pbase.com/rsilfverberg/image/68179907.jpg">

<br>Leica M3, Summicron 50/2, XP2 Super<br>

<br>

<a href="http://silfver.blogspot.com">Batteries Not Included</a href>

</center>

[kim yee]

Yak~~~<div></div>

[wai_leong_lee]

Did you use a red or orange filter?

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

But if you are going to shoot with a C41 film, scan and use Photoshop, why would you want to through away the colour information? As a B&W film it offers no benefits over a colour emulsion if you scan the negative and then you can have better control over tonality.

[wai_leong_lee]

XP2 is a chromogenic film. It takes only shades of gray, but develops in C41 chemicals. Thus it needs filters just like other regular black and white film.

[Craig_Cooper11664875449]

<i>XP2 is a chromogenic film. It takes only shades of gray, but develops in C41 chemicals. Thus it needs filters just like other regular black and white film.</i>

<p>

I know all of this but it offers NO advantage over a colour C41 film in a digital workflow!

[wai_leong_lee]

If you have a digital workflow, there's no advantage in using XP2. Better to shoot Reala or Superia and desaturate in Photoshop.

 

Real advantage if XP2 is for people who want real black and white without shooting real black and white film.

[jtdnyc]

Craig, the advantage is finer grain. Check the data sheets on Kodak's website and you'll see that the chromogenic black & white films have finer grain at ISO 400 than the color negatives do at ISO 100!

 

The grain is already so fine in modern color films that the difference might not matter to you. It wouldn't be noticeable in images posted on the web. But the difference is there, it's measurable and it might be important when making large prints or even small prints from only part of the negative.

 

(And, of course, if you ever should decide to vary from an all-digital work-flow, the chromogenic b&w films without the orange mask -- like XP2, the old Kodak product and the new one from Rollei -- give negatives that can be printed on an enlarger.)

[Uhooru]

C41 films are great if all you plan to do with it is scan. But the orange layer on them makes

them extremely difficult to get true black when printing fiber in the darkroom.

[eye-of-searle]

XP2 does not have an orange mask and is quite easy to print in the darkroom.

[Uhooru]

Sure, they're easy to print and get an image, but you have to fight for true black. I won't use it for printing, you can. I only use silver based film for that.

[Uhooru]

And, i think it does have an orange mask.

[eye-of-searle]

Barry,

 

XP2 DOES NOT have an orange mask. I am looking at it right now and I can assure you it does not. When I used to print in the darkroom, I never had a problem getting a true black.

 

You might be thinking of some of the Kodak C41 B&W films. They do have a orange mask. Ilford XP2 does not.

[michael s.]

I don't know about the darkroom, but my experience w/ XP2 is that it does not look orange. Scans very smoothly, too.

[jonathan_walker]

Barry maybe you are thinking of the Kodak chromogenic films (used to be called Portra B&W, then 400 CN or something). These do have the mask and they also have bar codes that make them easier to handle in a Frontier type printing environment. I prefer XP-2.

[Troll]

What is "Duotone?" (Sounds like an old Sears & Roebuck radio, but I don't think that's what you're referring to.)

[Uhooru]

If not a mask how come it looks brownish orange? But I'll defer to you if not and if you

believe you get good prints. I have used XP2 and loved the way it scanned, and the other

ones by Kodak's as well, maybe it was one of Kodak's that I was trying to print. It was a

school project and it was awful, my teacher was ready to wring my neck basically told me not

to worry about getting a perfect print because of the film mask. I mean I was using 4 to

41/2 contrast and still wasn't right. (it wasn't the exposures). He said all the C41 films have

a mask as they are actually color film but have been stripped of the color. The XP2 does look

very brown/red/orange when developed.

[al_kaplan1]

When Ilford came out with their original black & white "color" film back around 1980 there were no mini-labs or One-Hour Photos. This was before digital was a factor. Speculators, mostly the Hunt brothers, were trying to corner the market on silver and the price skyrocketed.

 

Ilford came out with a B&W film that used a dye image, and about all the silver is removed and reclaimed in processing. It was designed with conventional wet process printing in mind. Hence no need for an orange mask.

 

When Kodak came out with their line of chromagenic B&W films several years later it was designed to be printed on equipment that normally produced color prints, and was already set up to factor in an orange mask. The reason wasn't to save silver but to make a B&W film that would give halfway decent B&W results at the local One-Hour Photo.

 

The run on silver was short lived. The printing industry, followed by photography, started migrating towards digital. In a way you can probably thank the Hunt brothers for your DSLR.

[eye-of-searle]

Barry,

 

I think you are a bit confused about XP2 vs. Kodak C41 B&W films.

 

"If not a mask how come it looks brownish orange?"

 

XP2 film DOES NOT look brownish orange. If anything, it's a bit purple-ish. No orange mask at all. No orange tint at all. Period. You are mistaken.

 

"He said all the C41 films have a mask as they are actually color film but have been stripped of the color."

 

He is right and wrong. Not all C41 have a orange mask to them. See XP2 above. He is right in that C41 B&W is actually color film stripped of the color layer.

 

"The XP2 does look very brown/red/orange when developed."

 

Again you are a bit confused. XP2 itself does not look brown/red/orange but rather the resulting prints do IF they are processed incorrectly. When process correctly, XP2 is neutral. If you are getting brown/red/orange prints the lab/person printing the images does not know what he or she is doing.

 

An orange mask is the color on the outer layer on the film itself, not the tint of the prints. Two different things.

 

To summarize:

 

XP2 = No orange mask.

 

XP2 processed "incorrectly" = brown/red/ornage and even sometimes greenish prints.

[skeeter]

i'm no expert, but in my opinion the tint on machine printed c-42 process black and white film, whether it is ilford or kodak (and i have had both sepia and cyan hued prints from the different films) are "off color" because they are printed on color paper without any custom balancing. i have used both brands of film, and when printed on silver black and white paper, using standard techniques, produce excellent, fine grained black and white prints indisinguishable from silver based negatives.

[skeeter]

right, that would be c-41....but you knew what i meant.