Ilford XP2

I love Black and White photos and I've heard so many great things about the Ilford label so I wanted to try it out. I took many indoor photos and some outdoors and I found my outdoor ones turned out very nice. But some of the indoor ones I found were a little too dark. Overall a good film, but I do prefer the Kodak Professional BW 400 ISO instead.

- clear and sharp photos (especially the outdoor photos)
- C-41 very handy, can process anywhere

- if you make a mistake with exposure/not a lot of light, pictures may turn out to be quite dark
- expensive

Kodak Professional BW400 ISO

Can't say I dislike any of the modern black and white film emulsions I have used. T-Max, Tri-X, HP5 Plus, Fuji Neopan, and others - all great films. To my eye, they have a different signature but all produce pleasing images with only subtle differences. Choices between these films come down to price or preference... However, in 35mm black and white, XP2 Super is my choice, hands down. It has one simple compelling advantage over the traditional stocks - it can be printed at a photolab, in an hour, and it looks fine. I'll never sacrifice this luxury over any slight aesthetic preference I might have.

The issue I always had with traditional films is when developing my own, is I make a contact sheet of 24 negatives, and from that contact sheet make between 6 to 8 prints in a session. Invariabley, I have to make tough choices concerning what I want to print and what remains as a tiny contact print. With this film, I get every print back from the lab easy, effortlessly. I pick the proof prints I like for enlargement. It's so much better to have 6X4 "proofs" of all your pictures, than looking at contact prints in a loupe and picking a few for printing.

As far as the film itself goes, it's got a rather non-descript look to me. Can't say it resembles any of the others, and can't say it has any particular characteristic that stands out - perhaps the lack of apparent grain and sharpness. It's very good. As pleasing as any of the others. I find it to be quite sharp, fine-grained, good latitude, and has good tonality. The traditionals don't have much - if anything, on this film, but this film makes things very convenient.

This is different from the Kodak c41 process films - that's nice too but it's supposedly more difficult to make enlargements on black and white paper because of its organge base. It's more a film - perportedly, if you're a casual photographer who wants to fool around with a roll of black and white, and is designed to look better on color paper you get from the lab.

Ilford XP2 Super has gradually gained acceptance with traditional photographers, it seems to me. They were deservedly "poo poo'ed" when they first came out. The quality just wasn't there. However, XP2 Super changed all that. One is hard-pressed to justify purchasing the traditionals. This has become my 135 of choice and have a 50' spool loaded into my bulk film loader.

Still love the traditional process but that's relegated to medium format work, where I usually print 6 to 8 out of 12 exposures, and "to print or not to print" isn't such a painful choice as it is with 135.

- Print it anywhere
- Fine grain
- Sharpness
- Overall quality
- Price (if bulk loaded)

- Sorta "vanilla" - in terms of its signature, relative to traditional black and whites.

Kodak CN "Professional" C41 black and white
The "usual suspects" traditional black and white stocks

NA but I do wish Ilford would include more XP2 stickers when you buy 50' spools.

Its a good film and tack sharp, I didn't find the latitude to be that great but I don't think the way I have it proccessed does it justice, As it is scanned and printed digitally.

Very sharp, Very fine grain, Cheap, Clear base.

Very contrasty, I wouldn't say its the most forgiving film for exposure errors.

Kodak BW400CN, Neopan 400CN

Very useful for certain purposes, not for others. Very contrasty, captures a lot of detail--but done't have the best continuity, in my epxerience. For high key with some very black blacks, it's nice. I also use it for a lot of white-on-white that I basically underexpose to get a paricular effect--pronounced shadows, but enough highlight for a dramatic look. Latitude doesnt seem that great, but even here yiou can use it effectively--underexpose by a full stop, then push, and you get a very grainy, almost vintage look. I would never use this where subtlety mattered, but its very nice for dramatic images.

Contrast.

Latitudem continuity.

Back in the early 1980's I tried the original XP1. Whilst it was fine grained, the emulsion was terribly soft (XP2 is much tougher), even paper neg carriers would mark it. The film also had a a very odd brown colour. I went back to the FP4, HP5, TriX route. In 2002 I tried XP2 and put a couple of rolls though the local mini-lab - wow! These days I scan direct from the negs useing a film scanner, all the 'dodging and burning in' taking place in Photoshop. I then upload to one the online labs for prints onto proper paper. The results even though on colour paper are totally neutral. They compare very favourably with the direct prints I used to do onto Ilford Multigrade (with the advantage of any retouching taking only minutes on the computer). I look forward to to trying this film out in medium format.

Great curves. Fine grain. VERY sharp. Dead easy to scan.

I really can't find any.

Nearly available emulsions over the last 23 years.