Why I use FP4 plus

[robert_nancarrow]

I have decided to stick with FP4 plus film for almost all my

photography for several reasons and I hope others can give me their

opinions on whether my reasoning is valid. I use Hasselblad 500cm

with 50,80 & 180 lenses and Mamiya 6 with 50,80 & 150 lenses.

Previously I used Tri-x in the Mamiya (usually hand held) and Pan F

in the Hassy on tripod. I much prefer the look of the Zeiss shots for

their smoothness but use the Mamiya for ease and readiness. My

reasoning for the FP4..1.I believe that Ilford will continue this

film for a good long time and I want to stick to one main film for

consistency..2.Although the 6x6 negative will give good pics with a

faster speed, the 125 asa is a good compromise between the slow and

the fast..3.I can set the asa on any meter to 100 which will give me

slight overexposure (which will keep shadow detail(even using the

zone system I want that little extra measure of over-exposure)) and

then transfer the EV directly to my Hasselblad lenses without any

figurin' (most hand-held meters do not automatically match up to the

right EV of the lenses like the Hasselblad meter does and this has

caused many to be frustrated)..4.I like to use a large aperture to

isolate subjects at times and take advantage of the smooth out-of-

focus areas highlighting the focused areas (especially with the Zeiss

lenses), this is difficult in daytime with a 400 asa film and a 1/500

speed maximum shutter. Well, that's mostly it. I would like some

comments from those more knowledgeable than I about whether I'm crazy

to think this way or is this rational. Also, I use Perceptol now but

am not as confident that it will be around as long as the FP4 so can

anyone comment on their outlook on it and whether ID-11 is a suitable

substitute. Thanks much, Bob.

[hans_beckert]

FP4 is a wonderful film. I would not use Perceptol myself, as it reduces sharpness. Nor would I use D76/ID11. I would suggest Acutol for both tonality and sharpness. You will be stunned.

[robert_nancarrow]

Thanks Hans, I will give Acutol a try. I'm fairly new at processing (but not photography) and am confused by all the film/developer combination posts. Could you suggest a development time and agitation schedule (tank) and do you think it wise to slightly over-expose or should I go with the rated 125 ASA? Also, if you have any pics you could post with this combination it would be appreciated. Bob

[conrad_hoffman]

Your logic is perfectly valid, but any logic that give you the answer you want, is. I also use FP4+ for nearly everything, and my rational has more to do with 35mm image quality vs speed tradeoff. It's a great film. IMHO, the difference between 100 and 125 is too small to matter. If your meter/shutter/aperture calibration is accurate, rating the stuff at 64-80 should work well. Since that's all an unknown, you really have to do your own tests. I prefer an actuance developer, so try Hans Acutol (yes Hans, I will too).

[hans_beckert]

Robert:

 

For condenser, try 1+14 at 7 minutes @ 20C.

[robert_grasing]

I would not worry about Perceptol being available in the future. As

long as Ilford makes films such as FP4+, they'll certainly continue

to make Perceptol. Besides, the D-25 formula gives similar results

and is very easy to mix up yourself.

 

You didn't say whether you're using Perceptol straight or diluted.

Straight, undiluted Perceptol usually cuts film speed in half.

Diluted to 1+3 the film speed is close to that of ID11, the grain is

slightly but noticeably finer than ID11, and the image has high

acutance.

 

Perceptol 1+3 and FP4+ was one of Barry Thornton's recommended film

and developer combinations, so it's worth a try. The man did like

sharp photographs. I've used Perceptol 1+3 for about 25 years, and it

seems to work well with almost any film. I'm always trying other

developers but this is the one I always return to.

 

The standard advice is pick one developer that works well and stick

with it. To this I add: but try other developers occasionally. You

may find something better, but even if you don't, you understand your

own preferences better. And after all, preferences change.

[jack paradise]

You idea of wanting to stick with one film is very good indeed. Sticking with a film-developper combo might be a better idea and I agree with you that Ilford will be around for several years more in the b&w film business. However, as the market for digital camera increases and the market for film shrinks, there's bound to be some consolidation in the near future.

 

I, for one expect to be forced into buying b&w film over the internet only within a year or two, as local stores are either closing or converting to digital only, laying off older employee to hire younger ones for the digital crowd.

 

So, that esoteric film developper might not be available in two to three years. Things are moving fast in the film business and when that critical mass is gone, so will be a lot of sellers.

 

I'd stick with Ilford products all the way. They have a better chance of surviving than anyone else.

 

Cheers,

Andre

[deanmeeks]

I just recently tried FP4 for the first time and instantly fell in love. In Xtol 1:1, the film has a beautiful tonal range and was much easier to print on my condensor enlarger than the results I have been getting with APX100 under the same conditions, which are mostly contrasty exteriors and scenics. And I was amazed how little grain was evident in an 11x14 print. And yes, I believe Ilford will be producing this film for a long, long time. After I deplete my APX stock, I will be using FP4 exclusively for general work. Tri-X remains favored for all push processing, and am looking forward to shooting a few rolls of PanF for the first time. However, no 135 film will ever match again the splendid perfection of APX 25.

[scott_eaton]

Awesome film - let me list the reasons why:

 

-Has some ba11s to it, unlike PanF.

 

-Does well in an extremely wide range of developers. From D-76 to Microdol to HC110 to Xtol.

 

-Has classic B/W film density range and midtone tonality, unlike bland TMX and Acros 100.

 

-Far more workable than Plus-X without the lattitude problems and persnickety process times.

 

-Made by Ilford.

 

-Has similiar tonal range to HP5, so you've got the faster film if need be while keeping a similiar look.

[hans_beckert]

Where have all you people been? I used FP3!

[lex_jenkins]

Scott's praises didn't leave me anything to talk about. Pretty much said it all.

[andre_noble4]

Wimberley WD2D+ pyro at appx. 64ASA. The PanF is even slightly better in same.

[stephen_benskin]

Just thought I'd add a graphic comparison between FP4P and TMX in Xtol. Both films are developed to a CI 0.58. I shifted the TMX left to compensate for speed differences.<div></div>

[conrad_hoffman]

Just goes to show that film curves don't tell the whole story!

[photojim]

What Scott said. And it's delicious in PMK too (full speed, beautiful staining). Stick with it.

[stephen_benskin]

Here is a comparison between HP5P and FP4P at a CI 0.61. It appears that TMX and FP4P have a more similar tonal response than FP4P and HP5P. I think these are two good examples how anecdotal evidence can and usually does create misleading and inaccurate conclusions.<div></div>

[hans_beckert]

FP4 actually matches up better with Tri-X or Delta 400 than HP5.

[scott_eaton]

No offense, but anybody that is trying to conclude that TMX and FP4 have a similiar tonal range should stop reading charts and learn to process film.

 

I suppose next we'll hear how HP5 and TMY are similiar as well.

[stephen_benskin]

I feel that most people tend to compare apples to oranges. They have no definitive idea how their film is processed yet they make judgments as to its characteristics as well as comparisons with other films they also have no quantitative idea about. Did film A look muddy compared to film B? The first question is were they processed to the same contrast? Most of the time it's a case of the blond leading the blond.

 

In addition, curves is how photography is done. They are the graphic representation the photographic process. They are used in creating a film, defining how it should be processed, how it interrelates to the paper, and how everything relates to the original subject. It's called Tone Reproduction Theory. Denying it simply illustrates a lack of understanding.

 

The attachment is a four quadrant reproduction curve of both TMX and FP4P 135 developed to a CI 0.58 in Xtol. It might be hard to tell but there are two films represented. Disagree with it? Show me proof.<div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

Sorry, Stephen, but I gotta agree with Scott in that no matter how many graphs of characteristic curves you put up "proving" that FP4+ and TMX are the same, you'll have to pardon the rest of us while we stick with the reality of what we can see with our eyes.

 

I'm not going to disagree with you about the facts of how film characteristics can be mapped. But you've shown one pair of curves using a single developer. I already know from experience that TMX responds *very* differently to different developers, while FP4+ tends to retain its essential characteristics in all of the developers I've tried.

 

Once again, and I probably owe residuals or some sort of licensing fee to Michael Covington for referring to this chart so frequently, scroll down toward the bottom of this page and take a look at the section labeled "The Judge-Holm Test":

 

http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/hc110/

[stephen_benskin]

Lex,

 

Notice how I included the fact that I was referring to the films in one developer. Of course, the characteristic curve changes with different developers (which can be shown graphically).

 

Anecdotal evidence is simply unreliable. Phil Davis once told me a story about a book he was reviewing for a publisher. It seems the author described the problem he had recalibrating his film after moving to a new house and setting up a new darkroom. He tested every element in an effort to solve this dilemma. His conclusion was the counter top that he rested and tapped the tank on was 3 inches too low.

 

I could go around saying the best results come from processing on nights with a full moon, or TMX doesn't do well in Rodinal because I tried it once and didn't get the results I wanted. Both conclusions are meaningless. In both conclusions the results are anecdotal and not empirical. Think about CIE or with computers LabCIE. It's math. It's abstract, but it is also an accurate way to communicate the exact characteristics of a color. If I tell someone L* = 61.52, a* = 56.29, and b* = 29.96, they can reproduce the color somewhere else, but if I tell them a guttsy brightish red, who knows what that means. The same is true for characteristic curves and CI in defining film.

 

My point is what you are seeing maybe isn't apples to apple. Scott gave many sweeping generalizations (he is not the only one guilty of this). I wanted to show how generalities are usually wrong. My example is specific, and it challenged his blanket statement.

 

Of course, characteristic curves don't reflect granularity, acutance, and resolution, which add to the look, but they are about tonality. Think about the tests you've done. Can you be absolutely sure the contrast is the same between the tested films? Did you shoot the same subject under the same lighting conditions for comparison? How accurate was the printing?

 

I've looked at the Judge-Holm test part of that site and about a month ago attempted to find the articles it refers to (without luck). My impression is it's about film speed and CI. I don't understand why you used it in your argument.

[michael_young3]

Stephen: I for one am pleased to hear about good results with TMX. I recently bought what's amounting to $50 of white elephant (a 50 sheet box), and didn't get good results the first few rounds. I'm fishing around for what works, and your numbers seem to say you got it working. What developer are you using? and what times/process can you suggest for a starting point?

 

Thanks.

 

Mike.

[stephen_benskin]

This curve is just for Scott. It's a comparison between TMY and HP5P 135 in Xtol developed to a CI 0.61.

 

BTW, this data comes from my own testing. The film was exposed on a calibrated EG&G Mark VI Sensitometer using a calibrate Kodak step tablet, read on a Macbeth TD924 Densitometer, and plotted on programs that I wrote. And yes, it all represents reality. The over-the-counter commercial film is exposed to a range of illuminances. It is then processed in a commercially available developer using a standard system (with these examples it is in a Refrema). The only difference is that all of the elements are known. I think I've learned processing.<div></div>

[stephen_benskin]

I sent a friend some of the quotes from this thread and he returned the following rather amusing observation:

 

"FP4P in D-76 has a robust, masculine spirit in the low midtones, but an

ephemeral, dare I say, introverted quality in the highlights. I use a

split development process, half in D-76 and half in Xtol, to attenuate

its innate aggressivity in Zones II and III, and encourage its

full-bodied, joyful participation in Zones VIII and IX."

[hans_beckert]

Stephen:

 

Excellent characterization of these two films. It shows why TMY is less ideal for outdoor use, and why the highlights can easily get too dense (skies, etc.) and contrasty, while mid-tone gradation sags a little.