Battle of The Film Giants- XP2 Super VS 400TX

[@ezpoppy55]

Hear hear! 2 points. 1) I’ve long preached what you’re talking about: work backwards. Know what your end goal/product is, and then walk through getting there from the end to the start. Prevents a lot of missteps, backtracking, wasted time/$. 2) I’ve shot XP-2 since 1990 and absolutely ❤ it! All the qualities you show and talk about are spot on. Great video and I’m glad it popped up in my suggested list. 👍🏼

[@frankwolff2903]

Stephan, Have you developed XP2 in DDX, normal or stand? I wasn't able to find this on your site. Thanks, FW

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Years ago on FIGITAL 1.0 I did some tests and of course the stand here with HC110 with Rodinal- I suspect EI 200-400 to be safe stand at 35-40 min. But be sure to test and confirm first.

[@johnLee-bb2do]

Steve, great video. I have found that traditional films are abysmal at scanning. Your suggestion of scanning as a positive does help somewhat. But how we have the issue of the scanners starting to really age. the one attraction of this film is the flexibility of pushing. I will give it a try. My first example did not end up well at all. Keep it up.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Hey John! Slower speed BW films are easier to scan, especially with the stand development I outlined here- Fomapan 100 is amazing from EI 12-100 at 30 min, 100-800 at 45 min and 800-1250 for an hour- as the physical grain is smaller 100 pushed to 400/640 looks better than most 400 speed films at that speed! Yep scanner technology has not improved in years but that is not really an issue as films have pretty much stayed the same as well. Films like Portra 400 pushed to 1600 and 3200 look really amazing In both color and BW conversion- Be well my friend! Steve

[@Dstonephoto]

Would be really interesting to see how chromogenic XP2 120 compares to TXP 320 4x5. To throw another wrench into the mix: what if we used XP2 as an enlarged internegative (if it existed in 4x5) medium from a negative Tri-x 400 or Tmax or TMY - or from an anamorphic 35mm negative enlarged to a 120 internegative as a means to mitigate some of the traditional shortcomings associated with enlarged negatives such as grain. In other words: how close can we get to achieving Avedon-grade prints on a hobo budget!

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

For Avedon big film was his friend. TXP will not scan as well as XP2 so a great shot of Xp2 shot at say 100 for very fine grain and scanned wet mount would be pretty amazing- but unless Avedon is pulling the shutter it will still fail on visuals but ok on technicals….

[@Dstonephoto]

@@FIGITALREVOLUTION True! His former assistant has a super interesting blog post on their batshit insane processing ritual.

[@Croquetfilm]

Have you done any articles on c-41 processing?

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Yes but years ago- will do an update very soon!

[@VariTimo]

Why don’t just use DDX for Tri-X?

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

You could BUT the dilution G HC110 with stand development as outlined here provides very controlled highlights and stunning shadows… I also prefer DDX with Tabular grain film-

[@Croquetfilm]

Have you done any studies on c-41 home processing.

[@FIGITALREVOLUTION]

Will do an update soon- there are several options available that are easy and very controllable.