The images are beautiful, even the “happy accidents” I haven’t used this film but it looks amazing. Glad to hear I’m not the only one who isn’t a fan of HP5.😉
I've worked with the XP2 back in the day. A LOT. And I've never developed it myself, at least not in the C41. But I've always scanned it myself. And more often than not, I've done wet prints out of it. In the darkroom. And results where amazing. Every. Single. Time. And as a side note, you CAN develop this film in the B&W chemistry. All do it than behaves like a totally different film stock...
Oh yeah, XP2 in BW developer is totally doable, it’s just at the point I was filming this video I barely shot any BW, so I didn’t even have BW chemistry, so developing XP2 in C41 was a way to go.
I have been shooting XP2 (and Kodak BW400CN and Portra BW) for years now and absolutely love it! The best thing about it for me is that I can shoot from ISO 100-800 on the same roll and not worry about it. XP2 is such a great goto for something like a Holga as well since it's so flexible. I throw a Red filter on my Holga and just have fun. It might be the only film I like in 120 and 35mm exactly the same...it's just a great film.
Try developing XP2 in diafine for low light! You automatically get it pushed to 1600 with little effect on grain or contrast!! And you get rapid turn around. David @Photo Manical
Fave b/w films: Acros, XP2 Super, HP5+, Tri-X, Delta. XP2 is being developed with C41 color film chemistry process, hence cheap for lab development, and could being used between ISO 50-800, usually. Or extreme pushed, like into your ASA/ISO 1600 example. :)
Good work and nice photographs, thanks for the information, I have bought XP2 but I have not used them yet, I like the contrasted photos too, greetings
I like it quite a bit, and it seems like you've chosen it for good reasons. I have different rules to operate under here where I live, and so I find I prefer Tmax 100 and DD-X for developing it. I would like to try Tmax developer as well, but I'll wait until I finish this bottle of DDX first. I share your distaste for lab scans; I find that most of them do color fairly well, but I would say that a lot of the black and white scans I have gotten were disappointing to awful. Going forward I'm only going to have development done by labs; I'll scan the negatives myself when they ship back to me.
The images are very good, but with all due respect you've got to learn a lot about B&W film development yet. The XP2 super is the latest version of the old Ilford's XP1 chromogenic film of the early 80s. It is a very versatile and sharp film but it does have its weaknesses. The higher you push the iso, the less the shadow detail and the more the grain. I use it quite a lot for landscape photography. The highlight separation can be weak so I rate it at iso 200 for C41 chemistry and iso 50~100 if I were to use traditional B&W chemistry. As for the HP5 Plus, you can have any look you want out of it provided you know your chemistry. It is one of the most versatile and adaptable films that exists today. keep well and safe.
Very nice work. I really liked your concert photos. That high ISO and the contrasting light gave them a great look. I, like you, am also not keen on HP5! I find it always turns out a bit too flat and grey for me which is weird because I see loads of great images captured with it. But for me, PanF 50 and XP2 are preferable and allow me to get just the look I like, which is also the same as you - bright whites and deep blacks. Another few reasons to shoot XP2, besides the so called C41 convenience (which kind of dates back to when there were film developing labs all over the place - these dyas it is not so much of a benefit) is the robustness of the ISO range. You describe 400, 800 and 1600, but it can also do incredibly well (arguably better) at 200, 100 and 50. Best of all, it can be exposed at multiple ISO on the same roll - e.g. rolls 1-4 at EI200, 5-8 at EI400 and and 9-12 at EI800. It's totally bullet proof. Secondly, it uses dyes that more regular B&W films do not. And thirdly, you can actually also develop it in B&W chemistry. I've not done that myself, yet, but there's several tutorials on the web.
Thank you! Yes, I agree with you about HP5. I prefer high contrast BW and HP5 gives me flat images. I rarely overexpose film due to nature of my photography, usually I work a lot in low light, so I have to push film most of the time.
Thank you for good information and beautiful pictures. Anyway, you said that "1:32 HP5 is one of most hated film stocks." You know, some says that "HP5 is most suitable for portrait pictures". But you don't like it, because it has less contrast. Is it right?
I said that hp5 is MY most hated film stock 😅. For me personally it’s lack of contrast and the grain structure. I much rather prefer Delta 400. Maybe HP5 doesn’t work well with my developer (Ilford DDX). Anyways it’s just a personal preference.
Great video. I also am not that fond of HP5 for the same reasons (darker shadows etc). So far TMAX 400 gets closest to what I want. I have the opposite problem in that I shoot almost all b&w and send color out to be developed.
also thought I was the only one who thought HP5 was absolute lifeless trash.I can’t explain it. I never got the hype. As a result of that hatred it wasn’t until today that I even considered XP2 , and only because of the intrigue of BW reversal processing.
Xp2 is a color negative film with a single monochrome layer. Its also inherently lower in contrast than conventional B&W films, so the images you are showing are pretty aggressively manipulated given the native gamma of this film is low like all dye coupled C41 films. Last, under exposing is not pushing. XP2 can be pushed and should be pushed vs under exposure. The reason the film looks smooth is the dye clouds over lap. It's a good material for high contrast lighting, but not a substitute for conventional b&w.
Thanks for the comment! Feel free to clarify the metering process for pushing? Even though quite a few photos were shot under a contrast light, I do edit scans to my liking and there is nothing wrong with it. Non manipulated photo is a negative. As soon as it goes through the scanning or printing process the photo becomes edited.
I too, do not like HP5, that makes at least two of us with that very unpopular opinion. It does not have enough contrast for my taste I much prefer a more contrasty film
XP2-400 is for pulling down to 50 ASA. Never push it! Sorry. And you can develop it everywhere around the world. It's the exact other way round as the famous Kodachrome. XP2-400 is my favourate B/W stock.
@@AnalogueDiaries so use it with a wide open lens or on box speed. It's up to you 😁 . And pls don't feel embarrased. I'm doing film since 45 yrs. You will for shure find yr own way.
The images are beautiful, even the “happy accidents” I haven’t used this film but it looks amazing. Glad to hear I’m not the only one who isn’t a fan of HP5.😉
Thank you, Molly! You should totally try it.
yes!! finally I'm not alone haha
Ohh great video! I just shot my first roll of ilford xp2.. love it!
Great video and beautiful shots, as always!!
I've worked with the XP2 back in the day. A LOT. And I've never developed it myself, at least not in the C41.
But I've always scanned it myself. And more often than not, I've done wet prints out of it. In the darkroom.
And results where amazing. Every. Single. Time.
And as a side note, you CAN develop this film in the B&W chemistry. All do it than behaves like a totally different film stock...
Oh yeah, XP2 in BW developer is totally doable, it’s just at the point I was filming this video I barely shot any BW, so I didn’t even have BW chemistry, so developing XP2 in C41 was a way to go.
I have been shooting XP2 (and Kodak BW400CN and Portra BW) for years now and absolutely love it! The best thing about it for me is that I can shoot from ISO 100-800 on the same roll and not worry about it. XP2 is such a great goto for something like a Holga as well since it's so flexible. I throw a Red filter on my Holga and just have fun. It might be the only film I like in 120 and 35mm exactly the same...it's just a great film.
I agree, using both formats of this film are great.
Try developing XP2 in diafine for low light! You automatically get it pushed to 1600 with little effect on grain or contrast!! And you get rapid turn around. David @Photo Manical
Fave b/w films: Acros, XP2 Super, HP5+, Tri-X, Delta. XP2 is being developed with C41 color film chemistry process, hence cheap for lab development, and could being used between ISO 50-800, usually. Or extreme pushed, like into your ASA/ISO 1600 example. :)
Good work and nice photographs, thanks for the information, I have bought XP2 but I have not used them yet, I like the contrasted photos too, greetings
Thanks for watching! Have fun shooting XP2, it's a good film stock.
I like it quite a bit, and it seems like you've chosen it for good reasons. I have different rules to operate under here where I live, and so I find I prefer Tmax 100 and DD-X for developing it. I would like to try Tmax developer as well, but I'll wait until I finish this bottle of DDX first. I share your distaste for lab scans; I find that most of them do color fairly well, but I would say that a lot of the black and white scans I have gotten were disappointing to awful. Going forward I'm only going to have development done by labs; I'll scan the negatives myself when they ship back to me.
I have just finished a bottle of TMax Developer. I liked it a lot. But it’s too expensive if you shoot a lot of BW, so I got Adox Rodinal to test out
Very cool photos! Just as a PSA: in a pinch, you can also develop XP2 in Rodinal :)
It can be developed in any BW chemistry, but I prefer not to keep separate set of chemistry for BW film.
The images are very good, but with all due respect you've got to learn a lot about B&W film development yet. The XP2 super is the latest version of the old Ilford's XP1 chromogenic film of the early 80s. It is a very versatile and sharp film but it does have its weaknesses. The higher you push the iso, the less the shadow detail and the more the grain. I use it quite a lot for landscape photography. The highlight separation can be weak so I rate it at iso 200 for C41 chemistry and iso 50~100 if I were to use traditional B&W chemistry. As for the HP5 Plus, you can have any look you want out of it provided you know your chemistry. It is one of the most versatile and adaptable films that exists today. keep well and safe.
HP5 pushed gives more contrast and you can go up to 3 stops and shoot hand held at night!
I don’t like the grain of HP5. I’d much rather prefer TMax or Tri-X.
@@AnalogueDiaries Tri-x is beautiful but expensive. I like the new Kentmere films too.
Very nice work. I really liked your concert photos. That high ISO and the contrasting light gave them a great look. I, like you, am also not keen on HP5! I find it always turns out a bit too flat and grey for me which is weird because I see loads of great images captured with it. But for me, PanF 50 and XP2 are preferable and allow me to get just the look I like, which is also the same as you - bright whites and deep blacks. Another few reasons to shoot XP2, besides the so called C41 convenience (which kind of dates back to when there were film developing labs all over the place - these dyas it is not so much of a benefit) is the robustness of the ISO range. You describe 400, 800 and 1600, but it can also do incredibly well (arguably better) at 200, 100 and 50. Best of all, it can be exposed at multiple ISO on the same roll - e.g. rolls 1-4 at EI200, 5-8 at EI400 and and 9-12 at EI800. It's totally bullet proof. Secondly, it uses dyes that more regular B&W films do not. And thirdly, you can actually also develop it in B&W chemistry. I've not done that myself, yet, but there's several tutorials on the web.
Thank you!
Yes, I agree with you about HP5. I prefer high contrast BW and HP5 gives me flat images. I rarely overexpose film due to nature of my photography, usually I work a lot in low light, so I have to push film most of the time.
I’ll have to check that one out, would be convenient to develop in the same batch as colour rolls instead of having to develop twice.
Yes, so convenient to develop all at once
Great photos. When you say push to 1600 do you do the development also as 1600?
Yes, I do.
Great video
Thanks for watching!
Best film ever ! Half box speed meter for the shadows always!
Thank you for good information and beautiful pictures. Anyway, you said that "1:32 HP5 is one of most hated film stocks." You know, some says that "HP5 is most suitable for portrait pictures".
But you don't like it, because it has less contrast. Is it right?
I said that hp5 is MY most hated film stock 😅. For me personally it’s lack of contrast and the grain structure. I much rather prefer Delta 400. Maybe HP5 doesn’t work well with my developer (Ilford DDX). Anyways it’s just a personal preference.
Great video. I also am not that fond of HP5 for the same reasons (darker shadows etc). So far TMAX 400 gets closest to what I want. I have the opposite problem in that I shoot almost all b&w and send color out to be developed.
I think HP5 grain is too rough and photos come out not as sharp as with Delta 400, for example. I have yet to try TMAX
Just found this video......great stuff!
Thank you!
also thought I was the only one who thought HP5 was absolute lifeless trash.I can’t explain it. I never got the hype. As a result of that hatred it wasn’t until today that I even considered XP2 , and only because of the intrigue of BW reversal processing.
Спасибо за обзор! Хорошие фото.
Great video!
Xp2 is a color negative film with a single monochrome layer. Its also inherently lower in contrast than conventional B&W films, so the images you are showing are pretty aggressively manipulated given the native gamma of this film is low like all dye coupled C41 films. Last, under exposing is not pushing. XP2 can be pushed and should be pushed vs under exposure. The reason the film looks smooth is the dye clouds over lap. It's a good material for high contrast lighting, but not a substitute for conventional b&w.
Thanks for the comment! Feel free to clarify the metering process for pushing? Even though quite a few photos were shot under a contrast light, I do edit scans to my liking and there is nothing wrong with it. Non manipulated photo is a negative. As soon as it goes through the scanning or printing process the photo becomes edited.
I too, do not like HP5, that makes at least two of us with that very unpopular opinion. It does not have enough contrast for my taste I much prefer a more contrasty film
Same, it looks too flat to my taste. It also could be that my developer is not the best fit for HP5.
XP2-400 is for pulling down to 50 ASA. Never push it! Sorry. And you can develop it everywhere around the world. It's the exact other way round as the famous Kodachrome. XP2-400 is my favourate B/W stock.
Good luck pulling it to 50 when you shoot moving subjects in low light without using flash. But you do you 😌
@@AnalogueDiaries so use it with a wide open lens or on box speed. It's up to you 😁 . And pls don't feel embarrased. I'm doing film since 45 yrs. You will for shure find yr own way.
I don’t feel embarrassed at all. I tend to do stupid things with film sometimes and have no regrets about it 😆 Pushed xp2 looks good to my taste.
great video
Thanks for watching!