So…. I did a film test recently that begs the question: is Fuji Neopan 400CN really just rebranded Ilford XP2 Super? This is my opinion, but it sure looks like it to me! Both films are best at EI 200 and have a very usable range from EI 50-640.
Look at the histogram- they are virtually identical! So very close, shot only a few minutes apart, any difference is attributable to the changing light outside. Hey- I still like XP2 Super… and it’s nice to know that when in the UK or Japan the 400CN is a go-to option as well.
Viva la Revolution- Stephen
Does the 4181 at the bottom of both films indicate it was made in the same factory or production line?
Made in same factory by Ilford is always been known but there was info that it was tweaked to Fuji specs…. this is of course in my opinion not true…
Did you try to push process XP2 or Neopan 400CN?
neither one of them push very well…. portra 400 would be a better choice for pushing.
XP2 pulls and pushes just fine provided you develop it in 1+49 HC-110.
ISO100 – 4 minutes
ISO200 – 6.5 minutes
ISO400 – 10 minutes
ISO800 – 13.5 minutes
ISO1600 – 18 minutes
I have done 3200 for 24 minutes, but we are the toe of the curve and any error in exposure gets you a blank frame. The images are very grainy in 35mm, but acceptable in 120 where they come out at all. I can’t recommend 3200.
Stephen,
I’ve been experimenting some more with XP2 at various speeds and tweaked things a bit. I can’t claim the photographs themselves are special, but the technique seems solid, and the film is absolutely fantastic when pulled to 100 or 50. I made a write up about it here: http://drmoss.ca/xp2.htm
At Ilford’s request I am going to repeat a lot of the work using Ilfotec HC, and they might give it official approval.
C41 is always best over exposed… I found 100 to be very smooth but XP2 has a tonality that either you love or hate…