Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,915   Posts: 1,556,331   Online: 1015
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: any XP2 users?

  1. #11
    Paul Goutiere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Canmore Ab Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    608
    Images
    10
    XP-2 has such a wide latitude it is ideal for cameras older cameras with unsteady shutters. Like Super Ikontas etc.
    A stop or two one way or another will still give an image.

  2. #12
    Colin Corneau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brandon, MB
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1,754
    Images
    337
    I've used XP2 a lot in my Widelux, since its very wide exposure latitude makes it ideal for a camera with only 3 shutter speeds. Also, shooting overseas I liked being able to get it processed there and just take a page of negs home.

    I find its negs pretty thick to hand print and too contrasty, but that's likely just personal taste. Still, I really notice a difference printing those negs especially when I rate it lower than 400.

    Still, when it's a good exposure the results are good and it's a nice film to have in your bag.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sarasota, FL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    921

    Some C-41 thoughts

    1. I have no proof or reference, but I would think that B&W C-41 is a lot less critical in terms of developer staleness than color C-41. True, the dyes are stil there, but hidden within the black image tone if something were awry.

    2. Freeze your chemicals between usage. Some people freak out, but it's always done fine by me. If a complex protein molecule freezes and thaws w/o harm, a simple chemical salt sure can!

    3. If I ever go back to C-41 processing I sure as heck will first try Dignan's two bath C-41. Google that, you'll find it. No more concerns about adding X amount of time for Y amount of film, or worrying about temperature - which is lower. That's the theory, anyway.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Woonsocket, RI USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Verizzo View Post
    2. Freeze your chemicals between usage. Some people freak out, but it's always done fine by me. If a complex protein molecule freezes and thaws w/o harm, a simple chemical salt sure can!
    There was a thread here on APUG about this with respect to E-6 a few months back. As I recall, early E-6 (or maybe it was earlier processes, like E-4) had problems with freezing, but newer ones are OK with it. I don't know about C-41, but if you've done it successfully with C-41, that's a good sign.

    3. If I ever go back to C-41 processing I sure as heck will first try Dignan's two bath C-41. Google that, you'll find it. No more concerns about adding X amount of time for Y amount of film, or worrying about temperature - which is lower. That's the theory, anyway.
    Its formula is posted here on APUG, in fact. The advantages sound great; however, as stated in the APUG thread, it's an iffy formula for modern C-41 films. In fact, I've used it with Ilford XP2 Super, with abysmal results. A common problem with NCF-41 and modern C-41 films is negatives that are on the thin side, and XP2 Super has produced the thinnest negatives I've seen from NCF-41. I believe I processed two or three rolls in NCF-41 before I gave up on that combination. These negatives were so thin that I couldn't get acceptable prints from most of them on Agfa MCP310 VC RC paper with my enlarger set for grade 5. My scanner could barely get acceptable images from them. Maybe somebody else would have better luck, or maybe some variation of processing time or temperature would improve the results. I've had no problems with XP2 Super in Paterson Photocolor (now discontinued) or with another more conventional mix-it-yourself developer. Kodak's chromogenic B&W film, BW400CN, OTOH, works OK with NCF-41, or at least better than XP2 Super. So if you must shoot a chromogenic B&W film and process it in NCF-41, I recommend BW400CN. IMHO, though, that's backwards; you should pick a developer that works with your film, and NCF-41 strikes me as a risky choice for any film.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sarasota, FL
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    921

    srs5694

    Thanks for that info. Surely, it will save some of us a lot of grief!

    I would think that perhaps the flaw in the divided C-41 might be in the temperature or concentration. Either will increase contrast with the change for the more. For the patient, probably still a good starting point.

    I doubt if emulsion thickness has changed so much since Dignan did his work.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin