tef (05/03/83)
Hi. Does anyone know anything about Ilford's XP1 400 B&W film? I'm under the impression that it's a relatively new product, but I'm not sure. I've read some of Ilford's literature on it and was unsatisfied. I am interested in a brief explanation of how it achieves its wide exposure latitude (ASA 60 to 1600, as I recall), as well as any comments on its graininess, etc, from experience. Thanks, Tom Fawcett Mitre Corp. Bedford, MA
ddb@mrvax.DEC (DAVID DYER-BENNET MRO1-2/L14 DTN 231-4076) (08/20/84)
I'm glad Herb Kanner has had good luck with XP1. I know one other person
who thinks it's good stuff, too, and I respect his technical expertise
sufficiently that I'm sure it MUST be good stuff.
But it doesn't work at all for me.
I've shot it at 200, 400, and higher. Higher is a disaster, despite Ilford's
claims. At 400, it's far inferior to Tri-X. At 200, it's far inferior to
Plus-X. These results are based on my tests and a friend's independent
tests, accounting for around 100 feet of 35mm XP1 and small quantities of
120 format.
Incidentally, we also found that we got much better results in C41
chemistry than with Ilford's XP1 chemsitry.
I would describe the image as purplish, which sometimes has interesting
effects on variable-contrast papers....
And finally, since the image is a dye image, it's not a very permanent
medium. If you are doing art photos, and are planning to destroy the
negative after some number of prints to guarantee a limitation to a
print run, this may be ok. Personally, however, I want my negatives to
stick around a few hundred years.
-- David Dyer-Bennet
-- {decvax|purdue|ihnp4}!decwrl!rhea!mrvax!ddbmarcus@pyuxt.UUCP (M. G. Hand) (08/23/84)
I have heard that XP1 processes better in small batch C41 with agitation than in the deep bath process. Yes it is hopeless with variable contrast papers but I have found it fine with any other (and you realy can push it a long way, but don't bother to give it any extended development time) Marcus Hand pyuxt!marcus