FP4+ What am I missing?

[Steven Lee]

I've been meaning to have this conversation with an active film photographer for a while. The topic is... not sure how else to put it: what do people use FP4+ for?

Don't misunderstand me please. FP4+ is a nice film, but I do not quite understand what niche does it occupy in the Ilford product portfolio and in real world use cases. Its spectral response is identical to HP5+, its grain is just barely finer than HP5+ but FP4+ is two stops slower. When I need buttery smooth, nearly grainless appearance I reach out to Delta 100. When I need more speed I use HP5+.

Ironically I am attracted to things I don't understand, so I've been shooting quite a lot of FP4+ in medium format. Just finished another 10-roll pack. My results look 99% similar to HP5+ and I keep waiting for the epiphany which seems to be stuck in traffic on its way to me.

What am I missing?

[EDIT] Could this be developer-related? I develop both films in Xtol 1+1 or replenished Xtol. Perhaps they begin to look different in another developer?

 

[MARTIE]

Just finished another 10-roll pack. My results look 99% similar to HP5+ and I keep waiting for the epiphany which seems to be stuck in traffic on its way to me.

What am I missing?

[EDIT] Could this be developer-related? I develop both films in Xtol 1+1 or replenished Xtol. Perhaps they begin to look different in another developer?

Hi,
Have you done side by side printed comparisons?
If not, I'd still like to see some examples at a reasonable size, say 12x16" or 16x20"?

All I can say, is when I've seen enlarged darkroom prints the character of the films appear quite apparent, as per Ilfords descriptions.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I've been meaning to have this conversation with an active film photographer for a while. The topic is... not sure how else to put it: what do people use FP4+ for?

Don't misunderstand me please. FP4+ is a nice film, but I do not quite understand what niche does it occupy in the Ilford product portfolio and in real world use cases. Its spectral response is identical to HP5+, its grain is just barely finer than HP5+ but FP4+ is two stops slower. When I need buttery smooth, nearly grainless appearance I reach out to Delta 100. When I need more speed I use HP5+.

Ironically I am attracted to things I don't understand, so I've been shooting quite a lot of FP4+ in medium format. Just finished another 10-roll pack. My results look 99% similar to HP5+ and I keep waiting for the epiphany which seems to be stuck in traffic on its way to me.

What am I missing?

[EDIT] Could this be developer-related? I develop both films in Xtol 1+1 or replenished Xtol. Perhaps they begin to look different in another developer?

Ilford FP4+ is my go-to film for standard B&W photography. It's ideal for street photography;bot as fast as HP5 but it has more grit and contrast. I find HP5 is too soft and Delta100 lacks character, whereas FP4+ is a 'real' B&W film.

 

[Ian Grant]

I've been meaning to have this conversation with an active film photographer for a while. The topic is... not sure how else to put it: what do people use FP4+ for?

Don't misunderstand me please. FP4+ is a nice film, but I do not quite understand what niche does it occupy in the Ilford product portfolio and in real world use cases. Its spectral response is identical to HP5+, its grain is just barely finer than HP5+ but FP4+ is two stops slower. When I need buttery smooth, nearly grainless appearance I reach out to Delta 100. When I need more speed I use HP5+.

Ironically I am attracted to things I don't understand, so I've been shooting quite a lot of FP4+ in medium format. Just finished another 10-roll pack. My results look 99% similar to HP5+ and I keep waiting for the epiphany which seems to be stuck in traffic on its way to me.

What am I missing?

[EDIT] Could this be developer-related? I develop both films in Xtol 1+1 or replenished Xtol. Perhaps they begin to look different in another developer?

You are probably missing "Craft". By that I mean the skills to fine tune your exposure and development, and maintaining strict temperature controls during processing..

Some years ago John Davies, the British landscape photograpgher obverved that there was a wide difference in his students negative quality, all shooting FP4 and processed in ID-11. Aside from obvious exposure/deve time issues he noted another factor was poor temperature control.

Ian

 

[oxcanary]

Got used to it years ago and it’s look. Trying others it always calls me back. Looks good in every developer. Flexible good from pushed to 400 for special effects, slight push 200, my normal rating 100. In Medium Format wonderful at 50/64 in Perceptol. Just always know what I am going to get - even then it sometimes comes out better! effectively it is 70% of what I use. Ilford are you listening, please don’t tweak ‘improve’ it!

 

[brbo]

You are probably missing "Craft". By that I mean the skills to fine tune your exposure and development, and maintaining strict temperature controls during processing..

Does you answer imply that if you are sloppy during exposure and/or development, HP5+ and FP4+ are known to look the same? I'd agree if we were talking about putting films in the fixer first that both will probably look pretty much the same (blank). But if we are working under assumption of people having at least some small amount of that "Craft" what else might be preventing OP from benefiting from the big differences of those two films (and what exactly are those)?

Scanning?

 

[Ian Grant]

Does you answer imply that if you are sloppy during exposure and/or development, HP5+ and FP4+ are known to look the same? I'd agree if we were talking about putting films in the fixer first that both will probably look pretty much the same (blank). But if we are working under assumption of people having at least some small amount of that "Craft" what else might be preventing OP from benefiting from the big differences of those two films (and what exactly are those)?

Scanning?

Well, yes and no. I was not implying the two films would look the same , rather that with tighter control, call it technique or craft, you get more, the best out of a film, regardless of the make or speed.

Many years ago I was photographed for a magazine article, I supplied the film 120 Tmax 400. I was alos shooting Tmax 400 in my Leica M3, The 120 films were processed by the photographer in replenished Xtol. No issues with exposure or development time, I later processed my 35mm Tmax 400 in the same chemistry but was puzzled.

The following day when we came to print the 120 Tmax 400 negatives were unusable with excessive graininess. I realised why, I'd been puzzled why I'd had to warm up the stop bath and fixer. Aside from the developer temperature, there had been no other temperature control, and it was cold weather.

Ian

 

[Prest_400]

Don't misunderstand me please. FP4+ is a nice film, but I do not quite understand what niche does it occupy in the Ilford product portfolio and in real world use cases. Its spectral response is identical to HP5+, its grain is just barely finer than HP5+ but FP4+ is two stops slower. When I need buttery smooth, nearly grainless appearance I reach out to Delta 100. When I need more speed I use HP5+.

See Kodak and Plus-X... They just left TMax in the portfolio. Anyways back to topic I also thought about it and myself do Delta 100 for the fine grain high performance slow speed film. However what about users that shoot under plenty of light (eg, shutter limitations) and still want the classic look?

In 35mm and 120 the Kentmeres can be relevant as well. Almost as good as nothing to mention that some users mention finding almost no difference between the Kentmeres and FP/HP.

About sloppiness, I have an own critique in that tend to get more contrast with the slower films (Delta); but also the subjects are under sunny daylight most often. I got my temperature under check and do use Adox XT3 (XTOL) for the tabular grain type films but also like Box speed and below EI100 it feels slow -- if I cannot get water at 20C, it can be 21-22C but compensate as per Ilford tables. In another thread and validated by PE, if properly compensated and stable, higher process temperatures should not affect grain and contrast. I follow manufacturers' instructions and also point to them for beginners in the photo club, it might seem boring but gets good results.
Tend to shoot HP5 in lower contrast lower light situations, which also feels that it makes it flatter. Still have not printed some +2 push winter negatives.

 

[grain elevator]

It hits a certain sweet spot for me in MF, when I want small grain/high-ish resolution and use a tripod, but still want a bit of grit to the image. In 35 mm to me, too, it's neither fish nor fowl.

 

[Alessandro Serrao]

I've been meaning to have this conversation with an active film photographer for a while. The topic is... not sure how else to put it: what do people use FP4+ for?

Don't misunderstand me please. FP4+ is a nice film, but I do not quite understand what niche does it occupy in the Ilford product portfolio and in real world use cases. Its spectral response is identical to HP5+, its grain is just barely finer than HP5+ but FP4+ is two stops slower. When I need buttery smooth, nearly grainless appearance I reach out to Delta 100. When I need more speed I use HP5+.

Ironically I am attracted to things I don't understand, so I've been shooting quite a lot of FP4+ in medium format. Just finished another 10-roll pack. My results look 99% similar to HP5+ and I keep waiting for the epiphany which seems to be stuck in traffic on its way to me.

What am I missing?

[EDIT] Could this be developer-related? I develop both films in Xtol 1+1 or replenished Xtol. Perhaps they begin to look different in another developer?

Very strange that you've got Fp4+ grain similar to that of Hp5+. Kodak Xtol is one of the finest grain developer out there except for Perceptol.

 

[brbo]

Well, yes and no. I was not implying the two films would look the same , rather that with tighter control, call it technique or craft, you get more, the best out of a film, regardless of the make or speed.

I wasn't under impression that OP was complaining about poor results he was getting from one or both of the named films.

Many years ago I was photographed for a magazine article, I supplied the film 120 Tmax 400. I was alos shooting Tmax 400 in my Leica M3, The 120 films were processed by the photographer in replenished Xtol. No issues with exposure or development time, I later processed my 35mm Tmax 400 in the same chemistry but was puzzled.

The following day when we came to print the 120 Tmax 400 negatives were unusable with excessive graininess. I realised why, I'd been puzzled why I'd had to warm up the stop bath and fixer. Aside from the developer temperature, there had been no other temperature control, and it was cold weather.

Ian

Sorry, I don't understand what this story is about. What were you puzzled about when you processed your film?!

Anyway, I still think that it's quite possible (probable, even) that @Steven Lee knows how to read the temperature and knows how to start the timer. On the other hand, nobody here clearly described what differences he should be observing when he is done with Craftily exposing and developing HP5+ and FP4+.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Well, yes and no. I was not implying the two films would look the same , rather that with tighter control, call it technique or craft, you get more, the best out of a film, regardless of the make or speed.

Many years ago I was photographed for a magazine article, I supplied the film 120 Tmax 400. I was alos shooting Tmax 400 in my Leica M3, The 120 films were processed by the photographer in replenished Xtol. No issues with exposure or development time, I later processed my 35mm Tmax 400 in the same chemistry but was puzzled.

The following day when we came to print the 120 Tmax 400 negatives were unusable with excessive graininess. I realised why, I'd been puzzled why I'd had to warm up the stop bath and fixer. Aside from the developer temperature, there had been no other temperature control, and it was cold weather.

Ian

I've never seen excessive graininess in Tmax-400 regardless of processing variables.

 

[Ian Grant]

I wasn't under impression that OP was complaining about poor results he was getting from one or both of the named films.

The OP was puzzled why he did not see a greater difference in grain size between the two films

Sorry, I don't understand what this story is about. What were you puzzled about when you processed your film?!

My point was an extreme, of how control needs to be of the entire process, in terms of temperature, from developer to washing, and if you read what I wrote I answered your question.

Ian

 

[Ian Grant]

I've never seen excessive graininess in Tmax-400 regardless of processing variables.

I haven't except that one occasion, but then you and I would not replace developer at 20ºC with stop-bath at an unknown temperature, likely around 10ºC, fixer at a similar temperature, and even lower wash water temperature.

Ian

 

[Milpool]

I think the main problem is in OP’s qualitative/subjective characterization of image structure. All other things being equal (ie it is not enough to use the same developer, but the films also need to be developed to the same contrast) FP4+ is finer grained than HP5+. The higher the magnification the more pronounced this will be. In a subjective comparison it is also helpful to use the same image (or at least something with a similar luminance range/distribution).

According to the Ilford tech sheets there are other differences between the films. HP5+ is designed to be more “pushable” than FP4+, the films have different reciprocity factors for long exposures, and different spectral sensitivities.

 

[Mark J]

FP4+ works very well in staining developers like PMK, where it gains acutance and has improved highlight grain and separation.

 

[snusmumriken]

For me, HP5+ is for winter, indoors, and action. I would generally rather be using FP4+. In brighter light conditions I simply run out of fast shutter speeds if I stick with a fast film and want to use large apertures. Down-rating ("pulling") HP5+ seems bound to yield poorer quality than using FP4+. Delta 100 is also a lovely film, and I would choose it when fine detail matters - but on the whole I prefer the tonality and mild graininess of FP4+.

In the real world, I generally use whatever is still in the camera, and that tends to be HP5+ in winter and FP4+ in summer.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

My point was an extreme, of how control needs to be of the entire process, in terms of temperature, from developer to washing.

Ian

Reticulation perhaps?

 

[retina_restoration]

I've been meaning to have this conversation with an active film photographer for a while. The topic is... not sure how else to put it: what do people use FP4+ for?

FP4+ is indispensable for creating alt process negatives - in a staining developer (I use PMK 99% of the time) it creates an ideal negative for Salted Paper printing, and for Kallitype. The film base + fog level is much lower than HP5+ (and lower than many other films) making it ideal for POP printing.
I've used others and found nothing beats FP4+ for alt process print making. (Though Delta 100 is a close second) I find it very malleable/versatile, and choice of developer and processing technique can alter it's character to suit the usage scenario and tastes.

PS: I find the grain size/structure is significantly better than HP5+, so I have to wonder if you're seeing some other factor influencing the results you've had.

 

[Ian Grant]

Reticulation perhaps?

No, micro-reticulation (incipient-reticulation) which looks different to classic reticulation, Kodak call it surface artefacts. In this case it was micro-reticulation to the gelatin super-coat, and also the gelatin anti-curl layer.

Ian

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Ah, I left the micro word out.

 

[Hilo]

Since the late 1970s I have had two 35mm cameras: my day camera with FP4 and my night camera with a 400 asa film (first Trix-X, shortly thereafter Tmax 400). I always used Rodinal at 1+25. I never pushed film and my prints can be any size, from 12x16 to 20x24 inches. At exhibitions and in books, I mix images from both films and they look fine together.

To a lesser extent, I use medium format up to 6x9 and do the same thing. Everything looks like one body of work.

Sometimes, when printing very early work, I have some trouble with mistakes I made when developing. But usually there is a solution.

The biggest change in my time period was Agfa Record Rapid finishing and the advent of Multigrade paper, in my case Ilford Warmtone, which I develop pretty cool, with neutral developers and never shorter than 2.5 minutes. Using multigrade paper had a small effect on grain. The prints became more balanced, the grain perhaps slightly finer.

Finally, from the beginning I used Leitz Valoy II and Focomat enlargers, which have a light system that is slightly (but noticeably) diffuse.

All this to explain what's behind my conviction that FP-4 is a fantastic film.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

It Alt. prints exceptionally well compared to my favourite film, HP5.

 

[cliveh]

What you are missing, is learning to control exposure and development of a single type of film. As Ralph said: - FP4+ is a 'real' B&W film.

 

[GregY]

I could live happily with just FP4+ in all formats.