Author Topic: XP2 processed with B&W chemicals - Results (Read 8228 times)

sapata · « **on:** March 27, 2011, 09:35:27 PM »

I bit of cleaning in my photography mess and I "discover" a couple of films from few years ago that hasn't been processed

One of them is the Ilford XP2 Super 400, I really haven't got a clue what's on the film but I wrote Holga 2007 on the label.

Anyways...I heard that it can be processed with normal B&W chemistry and I'd like to hear if anyone here has had any experience doing this. I have Rodinal and normally process my films 1:100 1 hour stand developmet.

Cheers!

Pete_R · « **Reply #1 on:** March 28, 2011, 05:48:09 PM »

I use Aculux. 15 mins at 20 degrees. I did try Rodinal but didn't like the results, but it did work. I think the results were lacking in highlight detail which isn't a typical result for XP2. IIRC I used 1:100 standing for an hour.

gregor · « **Reply #2 on:** March 28, 2011, 06:27:51 PM »

I've done this with d-76, stock. 14 minutes. rather than 68 degrees (20c), I warmed it up a bit to 73 degrees (23c) to speed up the process. Agitating 5 seconds at the minute. I've only done this a few times with XP2 so it's hard to determine if highlight detail was an exposure issue or development. There was some highlight loss, but not terribly so. If it was shot on a holga that may work just fine anyway ;-)

I do pretty much the same with agfa scala (but at 9 minutes). Love the scala results.

sapata · « **Reply #3 on:** March 28, 2011, 06:45:28 PM »

Thanks guys...
I was worried it wouldn't work at all but if I can get something out it's fine...

I'll try something today.

Pete_R · « **Reply #4 on:** March 28, 2011, 08:19:13 PM »

Not sure I made it clear that I only got the loss of highlights with Rodinal. With Aculux there's no such problems. XP2 is pretty difficult to overexpose usually. It has a long curving characteristic which also means you can adust the contrast somewhat by shifting the exposure up or down the curve. I don't know if the characteristic is exactly the same when processed in other developers but, with the Aculux, it seems to behave much the same as with C41.

sapata · « **Reply #5 on:** March 28, 2011, 08:31:30 PM »

Thanks again Peter...

I just did with Rodinal... 1 hour stand development 1:100 and I have images recorded on the negative... I'll scan and post them later. It has a funny funky pink colour on the film base though! curious how it will scan...

I'm glad to know that it works because I have a couple of Kodak C41 B&W that might be fun to try as well with one of my toy cameras...

Pete_R · « **Reply #6 on:** March 28, 2011, 09:06:23 PM »

The pink colour is normal and it tends to be stronger if you dev it in b&w developer. It will get less as the film dries and will fade more with time. I've never found the colour effects the scan at all but might depend on your scanner and software. I scan it as a b&w neg using VueScan and it comes out as pure b&w, no colour at all.

The Kodak film is different stuff. I guess it'll work but I've never tried it.

sapata · « **Reply #7 on:** March 29, 2011, 01:40:40 PM »

Nothing like a few days off at home... so much time !

Here are the results... processed in Rodinal 1:100 1 hour stand development. The images came out very dark but I think is more because of the Holga than the actually development.

Scanned with the Epson V700 in colour mode and adjusted in Silver Efex Pro/Photoshop.

Chris A Fraser · « **Reply #8 on:** March 29, 2011, 05:59:21 PM »

Wow! Loving that first one.

chricela · « **Reply #9 on:** March 29, 2011, 06:55:10 PM »

Those look awesome.
I just ran a roll of 220 /Pro 100 color. Through my Great Wall. Trying to see if I can get away with it.
I was planning on processing at lab. But then thought to try some Pyrocat hd .
I've only processed C41 in Caffenol, in the past. So we'll see what happens

Miles · « **Reply #10 on:** March 29, 2011, 10:30:43 PM »

Wow, I'm going to try that then, I have a few rolls of XP. Excellent results.

Windy · « **Reply #11 on:** March 29, 2011, 10:30:57 PM »

Quote from: Chris A Fraser on March 29, 2011, 05:59:21 PM

Wow! Loving that first one.

+1

a lovely picture

sapata · « **Reply #12 on:** March 29, 2011, 11:16:30 PM »

Thanks guys...
It's good to know that it works... I'll try some colour film as well and see what happens

Mojave · « **Reply #13 on:** March 30, 2011, 03:38:49 AM »

These are fantastic Sapata!!! I really, really LOVE that first so much!

Can I ask why you do stand development? Does it produce less grain then using the agitation method, and, are you ever afraid you'll get uneven development because you arent moving the chemicals around?

Phil Bebbington · « **Reply #14 on:** March 30, 2011, 09:38:46 AM »

Great results, I am a long time XP user.

Karl · « **Reply #15 on:** March 30, 2011, 11:23:37 AM »

great, reminds me to get some xp2, I've liked past results but for some reason don't use it that much.

sapata · « **Reply #16 on:** March 30, 2011, 06:41:58 PM »

Thanks guys...

Quote from: Mojave on March 30, 2011, 03:38:49 AM

These are fantastic Sapata!!! I really, really LOVE that first so much!

Can I ask why you do stand development? Does it produce less grain then using the agitation method, and, are you ever afraid you'll get uneven development because you arent moving the chemicals around?

Thanks Mojave !

Well... the main reason for me it's because is very economic! 5ml average for a single roll of 120 film is what you need. I don't really notice any difference in terms of graininess.

Regarding the uneven development, I had a few rolls with a lighter area in the edges specially when using my Rollei TLR, I didn't realize until I saw this: http://www.flickr.com/groups/rodinal/discuss/72157625216183761/ . I'm still studying what he wrote and trying to understand the negs I had similar problems to see.The pics above for example are fine...

Maybe semi-stand development ? I don't know... I can't remember if we had a thread here about stand development but could be interesting to collect information and opinion from filmwasters users.

Mojave · « **Reply #17 on:** March 30, 2011, 07:16:47 PM »

That is a great article, and that pic is a perfect example of what I'd be afraid of with stand development. So semi-stand developing, how would you approach that? Im all for economical and I have read that the more agitation you add to the film, the grainier it can get and as much as I like grain, I find it doesnt work in all situations so I'd like to better control that too if I could.

sapata · « **Reply #18 on:** March 30, 2011, 07:54:55 PM »

Quote from: Mojave on March 30, 2011, 07:16:47 PM

That is a great article, and that pic is a perfect example of what I'd be afraid of with stand development. So semi-stand developing, how would you approach that? Im all for economical and I have read that the more agitation you add to the film, the grainier it can get and as much as I like grain, I find it doesnt work in all situations so I'd like to better control that too if I could.

It is indeed... although I can't remember of having a really bad result like that one, I had a few shots with similar problems exactly in the same area.

Some people suggested semi-stand as inverting very slowly after 30 minutes, some other people actually thought about inverting the tank after 30 minutes and leave it upside down in order to compensate, but you'll need a really good tank that can hold 30 minutes without leaking.

Pete_R · « **Reply #19 on:** March 30, 2011, 10:30:09 PM »

Quote from: sapata on March 30, 2011, 07:54:55 PM

some other people actually thought about inverting the tank after 30 minutes and leave it upside down in order to compensate

All the tanks I know of would leave the film partially uncovered if you turned it upside down. You could overfill the tank I guess to make it work but sounds iffy to me.

sapata · « **Reply #20 on:** March 30, 2011, 10:52:38 PM »

Quote from: Peter R on March 30, 2011, 10:30:09 PM

Quote from: sapata on March 30, 2011, 07:54:55 PM
some other people actually thought about inverting the tank after 30 minutes and leave it upside down in order to compensate

All the tanks I know of would leave the film partially uncovered if you turned it upside down. You could overfill the tank I guess to make it work but sounds iffy to me.

Very true

... and by overfilling the tank it would miss the whole point which is saving as we would have to add more Rodinal to compensate the excess of water.

Another possibility pointed out in the flickr thread is to empty the tank out and then refill again with the same fluid...? I don't know... If you read the whole thing in the end he's given up Rodinal and moved to Caffenol semi-stand...

Mike (happyforest) · « **Reply #21 on:** March 31, 2011, 06:54:00 PM »

I found a pre-soak helped me with uneven development on my stand processing with rodinal.

Mike

Mojave · « **Reply #22 on:** March 31, 2011, 07:00:45 PM »

How long did you presoak for HF? I always soak my 120 for about 5 mins, 35mm about a min.

Mike (happyforest) · « **Reply #23 on:** March 31, 2011, 07:18:19 PM »

Mojave

Between 2 and 5 mins 35mm & 120.

Generally put the pre-soak in and then make up the other chemicals whilst pre-soaking.

The other thing I've always done is agitate vigorously for the 1st minute in the developer.

Mike

chricela · « **Reply #24 on:** April 01, 2011, 02:10:22 AM »

Ok here are my results. Two different color films & cameras . Processes together in Pyrocat HD 1hr stand method.
I pre-soak for 5mins.
Fujipet with fujicolor NPS 160

Great Wall DF2 with Kodak Pro 100

chricela · « **Reply #25 on:** April 01, 2011, 02:11:53 AM »

well...ok..so I guess I don't do this often enough, for it to work for me! lol
here's the gw image ...fingers crossed...

Mojave · « **Reply #26 on:** April 01, 2011, 04:12:16 AM »

Thank you HF!!!

And Chricel, I see some streaks in your first image but none in the second. Did you see a problem with it?

chricela · « **Reply #27 on:** April 01, 2011, 05:42:07 AM »

Hi Mojave,
I had film in the fujipet, for a while.Hadn't finished the roll . Film counter window was taped up, as it was a roll of 220. & ...well I couldn't remember if it was loaded. So ...I did the usual "oh crap' move. & pulled back the tape. Hence exposing to light.
I'm pretty sure that's what those streaks are. As they are randomly spread, since the roll was at midway.
The 2nd photo was on a roll (also 220)that hadn't been exposed to light.
Also.. when ever I do the stand method. For fear of bubbles. About half way through time , I give the tank a tap on the counter. & I always over fill with developer to assure coverage.
Hope this helps

chricela · « **Reply #28 on:** April 01, 2011, 05:54:18 AM »

here another shot from the GreatWall/Pro 100

Mike (happyforest) · « **Reply #29 on:** April 01, 2011, 06:37:06 PM »

Chricel

I really like the last one, lovely contrast and nice simple image.

Mike

sapata · « **Reply #30 on:** April 01, 2011, 06:37:57 PM »

Chricel... the Great wall shots are cool! Awesome results...I like the bit of swirl on the background on the last picture...

Mojave · « **Reply #31 on:** April 01, 2011, 09:20:05 PM »

Thank you for clearing that up for me Chricel. And that birdhouse shot is a real dream! Love it!!!

chricela · « **Reply #32 on:** April 02, 2011, 01:09:41 AM »

Mojave,
You're welcome & thanks !

Ed Wenn · « **Reply #33 on:** April 21, 2011, 10:44:38 PM »

Years ago, Leon wrote a great article for the toycamera.com website about why stand development was a good technique for photos taken using Dianas and Holgas and other cameras with dodgy plastic lenses. He probably has a copy of it somewhere. I doubt very much whether it's still online at the other place. Maybe he'll chip in here now that he's back from his hols?

In the meantime, here's some discussion from this site back in 2008: http://filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=1229.0

Ed Wenn · « **Reply #34 on:** April 21, 2011, 10:50:28 PM »

Ah ha! Here's a more useful thread: http://filmwasters.com/forum/index.php?topic=2629.0