It's an interesting yet confusing film. You develop it in C-41 color chemicals. In my latest attempt after I developed and scanned the negative - I find the results extremely "flat". Especially the highlights. I just hope it wasn't because of my color developer (in which some components where 4.5 years old). But I am aware that the negatives from XP2 are usually on the flat side. Visually they look good. Perhaps ever so slightly underexposed, but nothing major.

The character of the Ilford XP2 400 film seem to be a "shadow" film with somewhat better separation in the shadow areas compared to the highlights. I call that a Type-I film, such as Tri-X 400 also belongs to - albeit Tri-X 400 separates the shadows stronger than the XP2 400 film.

T-MAX 400 is a type III film, with good local separation in the highlight details, and rather weak contrast within the shadows.

So, this Ilford XP2 chromogenic film is both good yet also a bit funky, it seems to me in a first impression (after several years).

I imagine it must be difficult to get the tones right when printing on paper. When it comes to scanning the negative - well you can enhance the highlight contrast - but not by much. I also noticed that huge amounts of dust - which I really wasn't happy about... Perhaps the film attracts much more fine particles... It was incredible how many spots the film had.

I find the separation of tones more natural in conventional silver-grain films.


Edit: Spellchecked.

- 138 -