Earlier this year my go-to black and white film of choice had its priced hiked astronomically, making it an un-affordable option for my daily choice. I set about exploring some different options, which included revisiting HP5 (a film, I must confess heretically that I have never gelled with), pushing FP4 to 400, Foma 400 and 200 pushed, and - the film for this short piece - ILFORD’s XP2.

I might not have even reached for a roll of XP2 had I not discovered the experiments of another analogue photographer who was testing developing XP2 in conventional black and white chemicals (easy to do at home) as opposed to C41 chemicals - which is arguably to some photographers a benefit of XP2, in that they can have it processed in any old lab.

A lot has been written on XP2 already, so it doesn't seem worth repeating the good findings of others that is readily available on the web after a simple google. Developing times, and a
(subjectively) best option of chemical were already laid out for me. HC110. I had a bottle in the cupboard already - nice.

Spoiler alert

The darkroom is a huge part of my practice. So I should state now, my experiments all pivoted around how these negatives would print in traditional silver-gelatine methods. Spoiler alert! XP2 prints beautifully.

The images here are scans of prints.

XP2 @150iso (HC110 1:49 for 7mins)

XP2 @150iso (HC110 1:49 for 7mins)

Non existent grain

Previous articles had argued that XP2, whilst being a 400iso film, shone brightest when rated between 100 and 200. So, I tried a roll rated about 150.

These negatives DO print wonderfully. XP2 has been praised for its virtually non-existent grain. Pulling the film only enhances this. I honestly struggled to focus my enlarger properly because the grain just wasn't there.

I'd argue that XP2 pulled a stop or two actually morphs 35mm film into near medium format quality. I haven't tried it, but I would imagine doing the same with 120 film would create negatives that could be printed like large-format. To some photographers I think this could/should be a huge benefit of XP2. The tonal range and lack of grain is wonderful. For me, I was looking to replace a 400iso film known for its grain. I shot a couple of rolls of XP2 rated at 200 on the same day as some Tri-X for a small project. The XP2 really looked a lot different when juxtaposed. Milky, and lacking grit which I do feel is part of my work in small doses.

XP2 @250iso (HC110 1:49 for 8.5 mins)

XP2 @250iso (HC110 1:49 for 8.5 mins)

Fighting the corner

I would also argue at this point that ILFORD already offers an array of fantastic films for those wanting slow or medium speed. I’m not sure I could fight the corner of XP2 in favour of FP4 or Pan F, or Delta 100. Each to their own, of course.

So I then shot a roll of XP2 around 400iso. And here my prints looked more familiar. In fact I recently was browsing negatives and was almost shocked to remember that an XP2 print (below) hadn't been made from Tri-X. At 400iso grain starts to appear though is far from obtrusive. Based on my initial printing, I could confidently use XP2 as a 400 film for my daily uses.

End of?

The initial article on XP2 in black and white chemistry had remarked how well XP2 pushes and remains relatively grainless at 800 and 1600, so I had to try that too. And this, I could argue, is where XP2 reveals itself as a serious gem, and potentially invaluable tool for photographers.Rated at 1600iso and developed in HC110 for the appropriate time, the negatives are as well defined, grain-pleasing, and maintain acceptable contrast as you might expect for 400 iso film. They’re actually less grainy than my Foma 200 negs. To clarify here….XP2 rated at 1600 is less grainy and just as manageable in the darkroom as a 200iso film!

XP2 @1600 (HC110 1:49 for 19mins) (worth noting that this is an inherently contrasty scene!)

XP2 @1600 (HC110 1:49 for 19mins) (worth noting that this is an inherently contrasty scene!)

An incredibly malleable film

I wouldn’t hesitate to use XP2 as my go-to 1600iso film. There is no doubt in my mind that this film has more to offer at that speed that HP5, and probably TRI-X. It seems to abstain from building up too much contrast, and is smooth enough to probably allow as much enlargement as would ever be done to 35mm negs anyway.

So where does this leave me with XP2? My experiments aren't over. But I think the important finding here is that XP2 is an incredibly malleable film.

I can’t think of another film which truly works brilliantly at 100 right up to 1600. Not like this. One just has to have a solid ambition in mind when decided how to use XP2. Want medium-format quality with the economy of 35mm? Rate XP2 @ at 100-200 and you’ll be happy. Want a film for concert photography or indoor shooting like weddings etc? XP2 can be your 1600 baby.

As for me, I’d like to use XP@ at 400 and 800 for a little longer. I’d also like to try it for some natural light portraits and see how it performs. But aside from remarks that have been made about the lessened archival properties of film stocks of this type (vs traditional b&w), I don’t need convincing that XP2 is my preferred stock from ILFORD for a fast street-photography option.

Passing the baton

I would love to pass the baton to a reader who has a real taste for HP5 and has learned to use and develop it well, as I think a direct HP5 vs XP2 at 200, 400, 800, 1600 would be really interesting!

Thanks for reading!