Ilford XP2 Super 400

Datasheet-derived original. Source: Ilford XP2 Super technical information, Nov 2018. Archived locally at X-T5/_reference-sources/datasheets/ilford/xp2-super.pdf, 5 pages, read in full. Settings in the notes.

What the datasheet actually says

The physical fact underneath, and why it inverts the usual rules

Conventional black-and-white film contains silver halide crystals; development converts them to metallic silver, and grain is the clumping of those crystals. Crystal size is fixed when the film is coated, so more exposure means more crystals developed, i.e. more visible grain. Every conventional B&W recipe in this bank is built on that assumption.

XP2 is chromogenic: no silver survives into the final image. Development couples dye into clouds that form around the exposed sites, and Ilford states plainly that the exposure/grain relationship runs the other way. Ilford's own speed guidance makes it explicit:

That is a manufacturer telling you to overexpose by up to three stops for the best image. It is the direct source of the recipe's Exposure Compensation —/3 to —, which is more positive than any other B&W original here.

Two consequences worth stating carefully, because they are the kind of thing that is easy to overclaim:

1. Fine grain is a claim the sheet makes in its product title, not a granularity figure it publishes. Ilford gives no RMS number for XP2, unlike Acros 100 (RMS 7) or Delta 3200. So Grain —, — rests on the stated "fine grain" identity plus the documented inverse exposure/grain relationship. Strong evidence for the direction, no published number for the magnitude. Flagged in the recipe.
2. The inverse law is about the negative, not about a digital sensor. A Fujifilm JPEG's Grain Effect is a fixed overlay; it does not get finer when you add exposure compensation. So the recipe encodes the result of Ilford's advice (fine grain, generous exposure) rather than simulating the mechanism. That distinction is inference on my part, clearly labelled, the datasheet says nothing about digital anything.

Why this recipe breaks four of the bank's own conventions

Only one of these is a stylistic judgement (how far to take Shadow). The other three are the datasheet contradicting the pattern, and the recipe follows the datasheet.

The tone-curve decision, argued rather than asserted

The sheet contains one sentence that can be read two ways:

"The excellent highlight and shadows of XP2 SUPER give enhanced negative contrast for optimum black and white print quality."

Read as "this film is contrasty," it would argue for positive Highlight and Shadow. I read it the other way, for two reasons that come from the same document:

1. It is a sentence about why prints come out well, the negative holds usable density at both ends, so the print has range to work with. That is a latitude claim wearing a contrast word.
2. Ilford recommends printing XP2 on MULTIGRADE variable-contrast paper, and notes that the dye image's contrast is "virtually unaffected by the system of enlarger illumination used." Both point the same way: the negative is the flat, stable, complete record, and contrast is a decision made at the printing stage.

Hence Highlight —/ Shadow —, and the "Print-punch" variant in the recipe, which exists specifically so that the printing step is available as a separate, deliberate move rather than being baked in.

Where it sits in the bank

Four films at the same box speed, four genuinely different emulsion strategies: conventional (HP5, Tri-X), tabular/T-grain (Delta 400), and chromogenic (XP2). That is a real chemistry axis, the same kind of distinction the B&W README already draws between the Delta family and their conventional-grain siblings, and XP2 extends it to a third category.

Two facts that never reach the recipe, but are worth knowing

• Digital ICE works on XP2 and on no other B&W film. Dust-and-scratch removal scans with infrared; conventional B&W's metallic silver reflects that infrared exactly as dust does, so ICE cannot be used. XP2's image is dye, so it is invisible to the detection beam. This is a scanning-workflow fact with no in-camera equivalent, but it explains part of why XP2 negatives so often arrive back from a lab looking unusually clean, which in turn is part of the look people remember.
• XP2 negatives are pink or red-brown, and lose that cast with long washing or daylight exposure (residual sensitising dye bleaching out) with no effect on image quality. This has nothing to do with the print, but it is the source of the "XP2 scans look slightly toned" experience, and it is why the recipe offers a Monochromatic Color WC —variant grounded in the sheet's own line about "colour toned monochrome prints" from colour-paper proofs.

Validation status

Datasheet-validated, no scan. Everything above is quoted or directly derived from the archived Ilford technical sheet. The digital translation decisions. Grain tier, tone-curve reading, ISO band, exposure compensation. Are mine, and are argued in the open above so they can be disagreed with.

Highest-value evidence to add: a scan with a genuinely wide subject brightness range (bright window + dark interior, or open sun + deep shade). Latitude is this film's entire identity and it is the one property a single frame can settle. Second: a matched pair at EI 400 and EI 200 to test the inverse grain law directly. Drop either into references/.

Derived: 2026-07-25