Topic: Ilford XP2 tests (was: XP2 @1600)

[Indofunk]

A few weeks ago, I discovered that I had a lonely, orphaned roll of XP2 in my fridge, probably bundled in with one of the cheap package deals on used film that I score from time to time on the electronic bay. My normal B&W film is Tri-X, and these days I pretty much exclusively shoot it at 1600 and stand develop in HC110. I like the look and have no plans on changing it up, but it then occurred to me that I have never shot XP2 @1600. I've shot it at 400 and developed in HC110, and I've shot at 400 and developed normally in C41, both of which I like quite a bit. So I decided to do a fun experiment and shoot this roll of XP2 at 1600 and stand develop it in HC110 as if it were Tri-X. Massive Dev doesn't have a listing for XP2 @1600 in any developer, so I don't have that to go off of.

Then I made the mistake of searching Flickr for XP2 @1600. I found people use a few different dev schemes:

This dude manages to shoot it at 1600 and develop it normally (!) at CVS (!!) and it turns out perfectly exposed (!!!)

A few people say they pushed it +1 stop, I assume they mean in C41. That makes more sense to me, and it is very similar to the way I shoot Gold @1600. For example: https://flic.kr/p/apTNrB (love the grain on that one)

So now I have 3 different dev schemes to try. To wit:
1. C41 normal (!)
2. C41 +1.5 stops (like when I push Gold @1600)
3. HC110 stand 1.5hr.

(I chose not to add a trial of HC110 pushed +1 or +2 stops, because that has never worked well for me with Tri-X and I have no reason to believe it'll work any better with XP2.)

So I went out and bought 2 more rolls of XP2, shot all 3 sequentially in my Pentax ME Super with (usually) a SMC Pentax 50/1.7 so at least those two variables are removed. So without further ado, the results.


My initial prediction was that C41 +1.5 > HC110 stand > C41 normal. Boy was I wrong First off, the clear winner is, to my absolute shock and near horror, C41 NORMAL


(look at that shadow detail in this outdoor night shot! yes there was a decent light to camera left, but even the bumper on the right is decently exposed, for 1600...)






Next up, HC110 stand developing isn't that bad, as long as the lighting is decent. (Like the C41 shots, I scanned these as color, which is why the purplish base gives it some toning.)


(I don't know why I focused on her ass instead of her head. in any case, I did get her approval to post on social media, so apparently she doesn't mind)


What do you think? Not as much shadow detail as C41 normal, no?


This one's not bad, and it's pretty much close to what I'd expect from Tri-X under the same conditions.


Last (and definitely least ), C41 for 5 minutes. I expected this to be the best because of my experience with Gold, but it looks like XP2 doesn't have a very long tail. All the extra 1.5min in C41 did was to block up a lot of the highlights. No visible improvement in the shadows. Also, much grainier. I like some grain, not quite this much




(This is Clem Burke, the drummer from Blondie, playing with the band LAMF last week. The band I was playing in opened for LAMF on their short bicoastal tour.)



Now of course, this wasn't quite as scientific as it could have been ... although I shot everything on the same camera and lens, I didn't take the exact same shots for each dev scheme under precisely the same lighting conditions. And even among those, I chose to show you guys the ones that came out best from each roll, because I am more concerned with vanity than I am with perfect scientific evidence

Anyways, I will still draw these conclusions: If I ever get any more XP2, first of all I'll probably shoot it at box speed If I do decide to shoot it @1600, I'll definitely develop it in C41 normal (3.5min) because it is a completely confounding film that even science can't explain

Thank you for your time

[zapsnaps]

Really like the Merc shot. I used to push film on occasions - I must get into it again. Nice post

[cs1]

Thanks for sharing your experiences with the XP2. My favourite shots of the lot are the concert shots. XP2 is the strangest film. I've never thought about pushing it... I usually overexpose it two stops and have it developed at box speed. I think that I still have one roll in the fridge somewhere. I really need to try it at EI 1600 developed at box speed.

[Indofunk]

Thanks for sharing your experiences with the XP2. My favourite shots of the lot are the concert shots. XP2 is the strangest film. I've never thought about pushing it... I usually overexpose it two stops and have it developed at box speed. I think that I still have one roll in the fridge somewhere. I really need to try it at EI 1600 developed at box speed.

So you're saying that you shoot it at ISO 100 and develop it normally in C41? And I just said that I exposed it at ISO 1600 and developed it normally in C41, so that means that XP2 has a 5 stop latitude when developed normally?? This film is getting curiouser and curiouser...

[MaxR88]

Well clearly I need to dig out a roll of XP2 and give this a try. What fantastic results!

[chris667]

Interesting to see the different kinds of development.

My experience with XP2 has mirrored that. I reckon five stops is about right. It truly is the stuff of wonders.

[Mike (happyforest)]

Iflord used to say that XP1\XP2 could be pushed and developed normally.  Particulary because they had designed it to be used in C41 chemistry and processed in high street photo labs.

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/amfile/file/download/file_id/1911/product_id/703/

Mike

[Indofunk]

Still seems magic to me 

[cs1]

Still seems magic to me 

I agree that it's quite versatile film.

[Indofunk]

While talking with Peter about this, we came up with another idea to qualitatively test the latitude of the film when developed in C41 normal. I'll just set the camera on manual at f/5.6 and 1/125 and shoot in all sorts of conditions. I'm not going to bother recording what the EI was for every shot, but qualitatively, we'll see if everything from bright daylight to poorly lit indoor shots work

[02Pilot]

While talking with Peter about this, we came up with another idea to qualitatively test the latitude of the film when developed in C41 normal. I'll just set the camera on manual at f/5.6 and 1/125 and shoot in all sorts of conditions. I'm not going to bother recording what the EI was for every shot, but qualitatively, we'll see if everything from bright daylight to poorly lit indoor shots work

I often do this when I shoot in the street, and that's with HP5+. 1/125 and focus set at 3m/10ft. The only variable is time of year: f/5.6 in the cold, low sun angle half, f/8 the rest of the time. There's no reason it shouldn't work with XP2 in the vast majority of situations.

[Indofunk]

While talking with Peter about this, we came up with another idea to qualitatively test the latitude of the film when developed in C41 normal. I'll just set the camera on manual at f/5.6 and 1/125 and shoot in all sorts of conditions. I'm not going to bother recording what the EI was for every shot, but qualitatively, we'll see if everything from bright daylight to poorly lit indoor shots work

I often do this when I shoot in the street, and that's with HP5+. 1/125 and focus set at 3m/10ft. The only variable is time of year: f/5.6 in the cold, low sun angle half, f/8 the rest of the time. There's no reason it shouldn't work with XP2 in the vast majority of situations.

You forget that I often shoot indoors in really low light In those situations, ISO1600 : f/1.8 : 1/30th is about where I'm hovering. I may ride the aperture and/or shutter in those situations...

[cs1]

While talking with Peter about this, we came up with another idea to qualitatively test the latitude of the film when developed in C41 normal. I'll just set the camera on manual at f/5.6 and 1/125 and shoot in all sorts of conditions. I'm not going to bother recording what the EI was for every shot, but qualitatively, we'll see if everything from bright daylight to poorly lit indoor shots work

That sounds like a brilliant idea. It works with a box camera, why shouldn't it with XP2.

[02Pilot]

While talking with Peter about this, we came up with another idea to qualitatively test the latitude of the film when developed in C41 normal. I'll just set the camera on manual at f/5.6 and 1/125 and shoot in all sorts of conditions. I'm not going to bother recording what the EI was for every shot, but qualitatively, we'll see if everything from bright daylight to poorly lit indoor shots work

I often do this when I shoot in the street, and that's with HP5+. 1/125 and focus set at 3m/10ft. The only variable is time of year: f/5.6 in the cold, low sun angle half, f/8 the rest of the time. There's no reason it shouldn't work with XP2 in the vast majority of situations.

You forget that I often shoot indoors in really low light In those situations, ISO1600 : f/1.8 : 1/30th is about where I'm hovering. I may ride the aperture and/or shutter in those situations...

Well, that's a jump from roughly EV10 to EV3. If XP2 manages a seven stop difference with no change in development I will be forced to conclude, based purely on the empirical scientific evidence, that it's voodoo.

[Indofunk]

So I did it. I loaded up some XP2 in my Graflex Ciro 35 so that I'd have very little control over the exact exposure, and I shot *mostly* at f/5.6 and 1/100th. There were times when I pulled it out of my pocket, shot it, and looked at the settings and they had changed, and then for the darkest exposures, I opened up to f/3.5, but this wasn't a scientific test anyways It was a "bring it, XP2" challenge

Here are some examples from what I *think* are highest EVs to lowest EVs. No idea what those EVs were though All developed normally in C41.










(this one I pulled way up in Lightroom, of course)


Here's a bonus multiple exposure of a few rooms in my apartment, which I like because it really conveys what a mess the place is

[cs1]

The latitude of the XP2 is incredible. How much did you have to pull the shot on the market? In any case the XP2 gets top marks on my amazing-list.

[Indofunk]

The latitude of the XP2 is incredible. How much did you have to pull the shot on the market? In any case the XP2 gets top marks on my amazing-list.

Honestly I have no recollection I probably shot it at 1/100th, and either 5.6 or 3.5. How many stops that was off from the actual EV, the world may never know 

[Indofunk]

Ok, a new experiment with XP2. I was going to develop a roll of "semi-desert" Ektachrome in C41 for 2.5 minutes (roughly a one-stop pull? maybe 1.5? I don't know, I just know that it works with this particular batch of fogged Ektachrome 64T), so I decided to shoot a roll of XP2 @200 and include it in that one stop pull. Here are the results. Executive summary: XP2 continues to be magic. The 1 stop overexposure + 1 stop pull gave me beautiful negs, and the only negatives (hahaha I did that on purpose ) are that they seemed to be a bit lacking in contrast, and there was a lot of extra schmootz on them (though, I find that any time I process film not according to box instructions, I tend to get a lot of schmootz ... this includes underexposing and pushing, as well as overexposing and pulling). Being the egotistical fool I am, I upped the contrast in LR and removed as much schmootz as I could, but there's only so much contrast you can add back to negs, so I think you'll get the point.

All photos taken on my XA. Shot at 200ASA, developed in C41 for 2.5 min, normal blix.


A Sunday kind of iced coffee and head-buried-in-cellphone


So of course this one I shot at +1.5EV to make up for shooting into the sun. Actually not that bad, and illustrates the lack of contrast (I pushed the contrast +20 in LR )


Taken on a photowalk with Miguel, who TOTALLY FIXED MY XA after it stopped working, by suggesting we find replacement batteries


Mirror shot


Street shot

[Pete_R]

I'm not surprised they were lacking in contrast. Thing is with XP2, you don't need to adjust the dev for a change in EI. Between ISO 100 and 400 it really doesn't need any adjustment of dev. I always shot it at 200 for 'normal' contrast scenes, 100 for high contrast and 400 for low contrast. Uses a different part of the long curve it has for each.

[Indofunk]

I'm not surprised they were lacking in contrast. Thing is with XP2, you don't need to adjust the dev for a change in EI. Between ISO 100 and 400 it really doesn't need any adjustment of dev. I always shot it at 200 for 'normal' contrast scenes, 100 for high contrast and 400 for low contrast. Uses a different part of the long curve it has for each.

This is all very useful information. If you read back, that was pretty much my conclusion from my tests, which is basically that XP2 can be exposed anywhere from 200-1600 and developed normally in C41. This 200ASA + 1 stop pull was simply because I was going to do a 1 stop pull anyways and had an extra slot in my tank I assume the lack of contrast was simply because it wasn't developed for the full 3:30.

[MiguelCampano]

Yeah, those moments before we found the battery were, uh... tense.

Nice results. Need me some XP2 now.

[Indofunk]

I think Adorama (and B&H, and etc) are still having the special on XP2 120. And now that you have a 120 camera, you can totally take advantage of that