From: staceyc@sco.COM (Stacey Campbell)
Subject: Re: XP2 (long)
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:42:17 GMT
Summary: hope this doesn't turn up twice, we are having problems with Pnews


In article <31790@goofy.Apple.COM> kanner@Apple.COM (Herbert Kanner) writes:
>Can anyone tell me what the differences are between XP1 and XP2? I
>would be interested in hearing about differences perceived by users and
>differences alleged by the manufacturer.

I've just come back from a month in Australia where I shot about 9 rolls of
XP1 and 5 rolls of XP2, all 35mm.  I bought the XP1 from B&H for about
US$1.60 a roll and the XP2 in Australia for about AUS$8.00 (approx. US$5.80).
I had a roll of XP1 and a roll of XP2 C-41 processed in Australia at a
"Maxilab" and had the rest C-41 processed at a local Santa Cruz camera/1-hour
lab.  With that in mind, here's some comments;

1. Both labs scratched all the negatives, the Santa Cruz lab inflicted
   scratches that are obvious at 5x7, the Melbourne lab's scratches can
   faintly be seen at 8x10.  I didn't find out until I got home that this
   had happened, since the 4x6 proofs in Australia didn't show problems.
   I talked to the Santa Cruz lab manager, and he checked color negatives
   developed in the same machine the next day and they didn't show any
   problems, he then ran two rolls of XP-2 through the machine and said
   that they didn't show any problems (this information was relayed over
   the phone so I'm not 100 per cent sure this is reliable).  Either way
   they gave me a processing refund and a free bottle of Edwal no-scratch
   (I don't have enough nose grease for 14 rolls ;-).  The ten or so fine
   scratches that run through the non-emulsion side of all the negatives
   disappear with a careful application of this stuff.

   Conclusion: I'm inclined to think that XP[12] might have a slightly
   softer base during C-41 processing than regular color negative film,
   making it more vulnerable to careless developing or worn squeegees.
   Comments/experiences welcome.

2. The blurb that comes with XP1 and XP2 is nearly identical, both
   claim that the film can be exposed from 50 ASA to 800 ASA.  This is
   an enormous latitude, but in my experience darker regions of an image
   exposed at 800 ASA will (not unexpectedly) lack a lot of detail and
   grain will be a big problem.  I would say expose at 800 ASA as a very
   last resort for both films.

   On the other hand this film maintains excellent detail even when it
   has been fried with light.  Contrast drops off in the brighest parts
   of the image but the detail is still there at printing time and can
   be coaxed out with long paper exposure and careful selection of paper
   constrast grade.

3. Both films can be developed with the Ilford XP1 chemical pack.  I've
   never done this since the reason I use the stuff in the first place
   is because my darned hand is in a cast and I'd rather have someone
   else develop my negatives (which makes me frustrated about point 1
   above!).  The chemical pack sells for about US$17.00 in Santa Cruz and
   on the box it claims to develop from 5 to 8 rolls.  Local 1-hour
   places around here will C-41 develop XP[12] for about $2.50 a roll,
   so other than for peace of mind, it's probably just as easy to have a
   lab do the work.  Note: there may be differences between C-41 and XP1
   processed XP[12], I have not had the opportunity to determine this.

4. According to a staff member of "Ted's Camera Store" in Sydney, they
   stopped getting XP1 about 10 months ago, that was when XP2 came along,
   he didn't say why it stopped but I suspect that it has been discontinued.
   So all that cheap XP1 in the back of Pop Photo is probably not short
   dated yet, but is also not as fresh as it could be.

5. It's not impossible that XP2 has a finer grain than XP1, I haven't done
   anything resembling quantative tests on this aspect of the films.  I can
   say that careless underexposure of both films easily wipes out any grain
   improvements that XP2 might have over XP1 (as some 8x10 enlargements of
   my negatives have shown).

Hope you can glean something useful from the above information.
-- 
          Stacey Campbell - staceyc@sco.com - uunet!sco!staceyc
Newsgroups: rec.photo