Ilford FP4

[paul_mccarthy3]

Ilford make excellent film but I have many many times taken a roll of FP4 out

of the tank and gazed in disappointment at the lack of contrast and general

washed out appearance of the negative. This after having controlled the

conditions and followed the manufacturer's recommended processing times and

temperatures. Then I read that some photographers routinely add around 20% to

the developing times. This worked well with FP4. Has anyone else experience

of this, either with FP4 or other films? The developer used routinely by me is

Ilford ID11.

[jim_gardner4]

All the shots I have taken in the last month or so have been in overcast flat conditions and I have added about 15% to dev times. On the otherhand if subject contrast is more that about 7 stops, I may decrease dev times depending on how I want the print to look. I wouldnt be surprised if your film was a stop or two under exposed as going by Ilfords recomended times should give you a printable neg if exposure is "correct".

[garethspics]

I have used FP4 loads of times. I develop in d76 1+1 ( which I think is similar to ID11) and follow the times in Massive Dev. No problems with contrast.

[rustys pics]

It always works well for me in Rodinal 1:50. FP-4 is generally low contrast film, but certainly that is an advantage under tough lighting conditions. If shooting in overcast I'd pick something punchier like Ilford Pan F or Delta 100

[machts gut]

You didn't tell us how your prints look, Paul. I find it very hard to judge a negative and, from my learning experience, I would say that a negative that looks punchy is to hard to print. For me, I don't have a density meter, a negative is alright if I can easily print it on grade 2 to 3, depending on light situation. I also use ID 11 or Kodak D-76 (both 1+1) and I found it an excellent combination with FP4+. I usually rate it at ASA80 and reduce the time for about 10 to 15%.

[steve m smith]

<I>I would say that a negative that looks punchy is to hard to print.</I><br><br>

 

This is a good point. I have found that a negative which initially appears to be too thin will often print well with details which you can't see in the negative.

[paul_mccarthy3]

To answer Stefan's question about the appearance of the prints, they lack contrast to the point where the print looks like a fog has come down on the image. To some extent printing with #5 filters gets aroung this but often the image itself is not suited to such drastic measures. To be honest I often don't even try to print these images. It first started with a little Ricoh rangefinder I used back in the 1980s and thinking back the daylight was often pretty poor. But Hey, I did not know a thing about photography then. Now I know about three things. Enquire, keep notes and keep trying. The use of FP4 at ASA 80 and pulling by 10 to 15% may well be my next step or even not pull it at all?

Thank you all for your help - it is much appreciated

[laurentvuillard]

In my view Ilford's dev times for classic films HP5,FP4,PANF are much too short! But if it looks fogged are you sure your darkroom is ok and your chemicals fresh and well mixed, these could be other source of trouble!