FP4 vs Tri-X

[david4]

View Camera magazine is my National Geographic. Back issues lie on the

shelves for years. I reread them from time to time. This week I read a

May/June 2001 View Camera issue at p. 62 where Steve Simmons wrote

that when doing N-1 or N-2 development, he much prefers Tri-X or HP5,

with PMK, saying that all other films are too flat in the mid-tones.

This is the first time I had ever read of a reason for preferring

Tri-X or HP5 other than increased film speed. For years I have been

using only FP4, virtually all developed with PMK. Shaken, not stirred,

in a small tank. Negatives prewashed. Every 30 seconds, agitation.

Seven to nine minutes development at 68 degrees. I have not tried HP5

or Tri-X. I know that I when make long exposures, either with FP4

rated 80 or 40, or Zone III placed on Zone IV or Zone V, using light

green filtration, of ferns, rocks, water, and foliage, and then

process N-1 or N-2, my prints have a flat, TMAX-100 look, when printed

on variable contrast paper. There is better contrast when I use graded

fiber base paper at grades II or III. I use the minus development to

counter the effects on the highlights associated wth prolonged

exposure. Is the flatness on variable contrast polyster paper due

mostly or solely to my zone placement and minus development, choice of

variable contrast polyester paper rather than fiberbase paper, or

should I switch to Tri-X/HP5? Would the use of some developer other

than PMK further enhance the local contrast and help avoid the

flatness that I find objectionable? Perhaps from your experience you

have found the optimum mixture of these variables and I would

appreciate your advice. I checked this website for advice on Tri-X and

HP5 and did not find anything addressing this issue. Ditto the web. In

Sexton's book, Listening to the Trees, he has an image of a burnt log

in a grove at Yosemite, taken with Tri-X, showing the local contrast

that I desire. He states that the image was printed on polycontrast

paper. That is my goal................

[jeff_buckels]

Just one comment: I use FP4+ and I develop it in pyro (previously

PMK, now the WD2D forumula) for printing on platinum and palladium.

The midtone and highlight separation are, I believe, excellent. The

characteristic curve is long and straight. Many feel that FP4+ is one

of the two or three best films -- if not the best -- for platinum and

palladium printing WHEN IT IS DEVELOPED IN PYRO.... -jeff buckels

[doug_paramore]

David: I use both Tri-X and HP-5, with more experience using Tri-X. I

develop in HC-110, and the midtones are excellent with good contrast.

It's probably just my own bias, but I haven't found another film

which will beat those two for brilliant prints and for "life" in the

low to mid tones. I can't speak for these two films in PMK, but they

sing in HC-110.

 

<p>

 

Regards,

[dave_anton1]

I used to have the same problem, I have been using FP4 with PMK for

years as well and I used to have it rated at 32 with 6-7 minutes in

PMK. This used to give me somewhat flat negatives. I have

since increased my EI to 80 with a higher processing time and it has

improved my contrast. However, I also needed to increase the

aggressiveness of my agitation a little bit to give me better

seperation.

 

<p>

 

With regards to printing, I use polycontrast paper, both FB and RC and

have found it to be incredibly flexible for printing. I can stretch

my contrast anyway that I want, especially with applied dodging and

burning and mix of filters. As for your flat prints, I believe that

alot if this lies in your printing technique. Over the years I have

begun to realize how much I have totally underestimated the importance

of expressively printing my negative. I have spent WAAAYYYY too much

time trying to attain my perfect negatives and basically having them

printed as straight prints with some dodging and burning here and

there. I now view the printing step of my photography as the most

important and thoughtful part of my process (after producing a good

negative with alot to work with). I feel totally free now:)

[henry_friedman]

David - Maybe the film isn't the problem. Perhaps you are too often

sacrificing local contrast in order to preserve an overall range of

contrast within the negative. You might try to exclude discreet

areas of excessive brightness from your metering considerations, and

keep your developing times more normal. This should help you get

more shadow detail and sparkle in the mid-tones, but will sometimes

create problem hightlights.

 

<p>

 

If you look again at the technical notees in "Listen to the Trees",

you'll notice that many of the negatives were given N+ development.

I'll bet this is done to give that wonderful local contrast you're

striving for. John Sexton's printing example in that book is of a

negative given plus development, and the printing employed ample

dodging, burning and flashing to control the brightness of highlight

areas.

[mark_parsons1]

David - You've gotten some good advice so far. Much has already

been said about the films you mention (FP4, HP5, Tri-X) so all I'll

say about them is that good, punchy, crisp prints can be made using

any of them. As someone already mentioned, a LOT of this lies in the

printing process. Again, if you're geting prints you like with

graded papers, there's no reason you can't do as well (or better)

with variable contrast papers. Don't be afraid to do some serious

dodging and burning, and don't shy away from jacking up the contrast

if that's what it takes. (A.A. used to basically say that you have to

go too far to know when you've gone far enough, so take big steps!)

It's a mistake to think every negative should be able to be printed

straight (no dodge/burn/etc.) on grade 2 paper. Look at some of

the "printing workshop" articles in the magazines - almost invariable

the final print is much manipulated (and improved) over the straight

print.

 

<p>

 

Having said that, I also think it's frequently a mistake to

automatically reduce development to compensate for long exposures.

Most long exposures are actually made in low contrast lighting (i.e.

not typical "sun & shade" lighting). Next time you make a long

exposure, develop normally and I'll bet you'll like the resulting neg

better. I know I usually do.

 

<p>

 

Cheers!

[dave_karp]

David,

 

<p>

 

Along with the other great input you have received, consider this. At

a John Sexton printing workshop a few years ago, we discussed having

problems fighting with highlights and trying to achieve the "snap" we

were looking for in our prints. He suggested a real safelight test.

By a "real" test, he suggested following the procedure outlined by

Kodak in a technical bulletin on its website. He said that safelight

filters should be changed periodically because over time they become

unsafe. He also said that if you have a low quality safelight you can

have the same problems. I told my wife about this, and she bought me

a new Kodak "bullet" safelight as a birthday gift. Instantly, I saw

quite a difference in my prints.

 

<p>

 

The quality and age of my old safelight were impacting on my prints,

making me work too hard in the darkroom for less than satisfying

results. The change in the quality of my prints was well worth the

price of the new safelight.

 

<p>

 

This is a slow, almost imperceptible process that probably affects

many photographers. This suggestion has nothing to do with developers

and film, but it may be of some help.

[djackson]

Do an experiment. Keep everything the same but change one variable.

Then see what happens. I would suggest that you try 10 seconds

agitation every minute, as stated in Ilford's technical information

sheet on FP4+. Then test each of the ideas that others have listed

here. Sexton used compensation development on some of his negatives

in that book you mention, rather than minus development. Give that a

try if you are trying for N-2 equivalence.

[david4]

I thank you all. I liked all of your suggestions. ..................