FP4+ What am I missing?

[snusmumriken]

The most important factor is probably to know that characteristic curves are not completely "hammered in stone"!

Give me FP4+ or Delta 100 for example - both two being very versatile and flexible films in that regard - and I can create many different characteristic curves dependent on
- the specific developer used
- the specific dilution used
- the specific agitation rhythm used.

I can develop them just in the way I want / need for specific applications, with significantly different CCs.

For everyone who wants to optimize his BW developing results I can only highly recommend to use a densitometer and evaluate the characteristic curves.
Because that offers you all the information needed:
- real effective film speed of your film / developer combination
- behaviour of your comb. in the shadows, mid-tones and highlights
- you see immediately where certain problems have their origin with your individual workflow so far.

If BW film photographers would do that 90-95% of all questions concerning film development problems would dissappear.
A densitometer and CC evaluation is probably the most powerful tool you can use for optimizing your personal development process.

But unfortunately instead most photographers refuse to do it, come to forums and ask for the "magic bullet":
"Tell me, with what developer and time I have to develop film xy to get perfect results."
But it cannot work that way, as other photographers do use
- different cameras with different lightmeters which may vary to the ones you use by 1/3, 1/2 or even more stops
- the thermometers they use may also differ from yours, most photographers don't use calibrated ones
- their agitation method may differ as well.......

So the only way for perfect results for you, which you like and with which you are fully satiesfied with is to optimize your workflow for the equipment and procedures you are using.
With a very good, precise densitometer (e.g. Heiland TRD-2) and evaluating the CCs of your film-developer combinations exactly that is possible in a perfect way.

Best regards,
Henning

Henning, thanks, I do largely accept that a personalised approach is ideal. But OP asked what FP4+ has that HP5+ and Delta 100 don’t have. Several people have answered ‘tonality’. Are you saying that there is absolutely nothing common to all the characteristic curves of FP4+ with various developers that represents the characteristics of the emulsion per se? If so, then the answer to the OP can only be “intermediate granularity”, n’est-ce pas?

 

[Mark J]

Thanks to Jonathan and Henning for bringing some data back into the discussion.

I am impressed with the measured FP4+ curve in D-76 : it hardly shoulders at all - much better than the curve on Ilford's own datasheet .. though this is labelled as being from Ilfotec HC.

Some other comments -
I like the grain of 35mm Delta 400, though I'll admit I haven't used much HP5+ in 35mm. I have a favourite small print ( on FB paper ) from years ago taken in Wiltshire using Delta 400 and a Minolta 21mm 'mirror-up' lens. It has a pleasing level of acutance alongside a very uniform medium-sized grain.

Though I used FP4+ a lot in roll film in the 90's and 2000's, I don't reach for it so often these days. I tend to go for faster films like Delta 400, or use Pan F+ which is distinctly sharper and smoother, though with limitations on dynamic range. However, I think I might revisit FP4+ in roll film again now.

One not-so-easy tip to get a more punchy look from HP5+ , with more highlight separation, is to use a condenser head. It's like a different film when used this way ( I am busy looking through my files for HP5+ shots to reprint ! ). I'm sure the same holds for any film generally considered muddy or low-contrast.

Overall the best film is TMY 400 , it has some really special properties, and I would use it more but for the price.
One tip is to look for EBay offers on stock 2-3 years past its date, they are at a significant discount.

 

[Ian Grant]

So the only way for perfect results for you, which you like and with which you are fully satiesfied with is to optimize your workflow for the equipment and procedures you are using.
With a very good, precise densitometer (e.g. Heiland TRD-2) and evaluating the CCs of your film-developer combinations exactly that is possible in a perfect way.

Best regards,
Henning

While I agree with your posts here, it's worth adding that use of a densitometer is only one approach, there is also more practical Zone system testing which work just as well to optimise personal film speed and development times.

Either way your list of variables comes down to personal mastery of "Craft".

Ian

 

[warden]

With a very good, precise densitometer (e.g. Heiland TRD-2) and evaluating the CCs of your film-developer combinations exactly that is possible in a perfect way.

No doubt that is a scientific way to analyze personal results with camera/film/developer/processing but I would guess the $1,000 price of that instrument and labor of plotting curves for various films and developers is a significant disincentive for the average amateur photographer here. I know it is for me.

I'd love to try one out though!

 

[takilmaboxer]

While a densitometer is the proper tool for measuring film density, you can use a meter to get an idea of a film's curve, as they usually have one third stop resolution. With 6X6 I fill the frame with a smooth even image, like an out of focus grey card, and place the negative directly over the lens to make a measurement. Rough, but serviceable.
To get more contrast from HP5, increase the development time by 15-20%. A recent thread about Kentmere films had multiple curves for different development times, and clearly shows the relationship between development time and contrast. The same principle applies to all films. One develops Craft by doing this kind of testing repeatedly, until one can look at a scene and predict how the film will render it. It isn't magic, it's science, but it requires doing lots of home work. One must also be careful to use identical temperatures, agitation, etc.
And finally, Kodak clearly states in regard to TMax films, that they have less sensitivity to blue light by design. The same does not apply to Ilford's films.
Finally I'd like to thank Mssrs. Serger amd Wily for their quantitative approach to these questions.

 

[Milpool]

Doing this stuff properly is indeed time consuming and there are all sorts of pitfalls. I don't recommend people go down the rat hole unless they have an interest in sensitometry.

As Lachlan Young pointed out far upthread, in many cases the tone reproduction only differs at the upper end of the exposure scale - useful to know for extreme contrast subjects, but quite a ways outside the luminance range of the average scene.

It can sometimes be informative to superimpose curves in order to evaluate the differences between films processed in a certain way. Here is one example for TMX, Delta 100 and FP4+:

No doubt that is a scientific way to analyze personal results with camera/film/developer/processing but I would guess the $1,000 price of that instrument and labor of plotting curves for various films and developers is a significant disincentive for the average amateur photographer here. I know it is for me.

I'd love to try one out though!

 

[Henning Serger]

Henning, thanks, I do largely accept that a personalised approach is ideal. But OP asked what FP4+ has that HP5+ and Delta 100 don’t have. Several people have answered ‘tonality’.

Well, let's have a look at what parameters determine "tonality":
1. Shape of characteristic curve.
2. Fineness of grain.
That plays mainly a role with enlargements. The finer the grain, the better the tonal transitions / steps.
To illustrate that the "air ballon example" is very good: The more air you pump into a small, coloured rubber-ballon, and the bigger it gets, the lighter, less intense the colour will be, because the surface is more stretched, and the colour particels are distributed on a much bigger area the bigger the balloon gets.
3. Spectral sensitivity.

To point 1:
As explained above that is mainly dependent on the chosen developer (in combination with chosen exposure), the used dilution and agitation method. All three films have the great advantage that they do very well respond to changes in these parameters, so that you can get exactly the result you want.

To point 2:
Here FP4+ and of course especially Delta 100 have the advantage of finer grain compared to HP5+. Much higher enlargements are possible.

Point 3:
Small differences. Maybe relevant for some photographers, but not so much for others.

Are you saying that there is absolutely nothing common to all the characteristic curves of FP4+ with various developers that represents the characteristics of the emulsion per se?

Well, I've got
- a straight, perfectly linear characteristic curve with FP4+ for example with DD-X, and a very similar curve shape with XT-3 1+1
- curves with a flattened part in the highlight zones - semi- and full compensating effect - with compensating developers like e.g. FX-39II and higher diluted Rodinal (1+74).
Same for Delta 100.
This characteristic to respond so very well to different developers, and the possibility to fine-tune the CC in the direction you want / need is a big advantage. It offers you more creative options.
What all of my differnt curves have in common is that there is relatively good shadow detail with FP4+ (compared to other films with classic emulsion technology) because of a quite short toe.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

While I agree with your posts here, it's worth adding that use of a densitometer is only one approach, there is also more practical Zone system testing which work just as well to optimise personal film speed and development times.

Hello Ian,

I've used the alternative methods as well. And they can work very good as well with the needed knowledge. But using a densitometer and evaluating the CCs has the advantages of being
- extremely precise
- very fast
- very easy and comfortable.
I need less time for perfect results.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[BobUK]

BobUK, can you say what amendments you have made to get decent contrast with HP5+

Thanks

pentaxuser

I stopped printing for a few years in the nineties, Acutol and Aculux were my regular developers at the time.
Chemicals came from a couple of not so local, very small camera shops. I had to use whatever was in stock at the time.

Despite the instructions for both developers to increase the speeds I was contrary and kept at box speeds.
This was accompanied by a reduction of time in the developers. Ilford agitation I think.


All my processing information was, and still is today written on the backs of the contact sheets.
Although I still have the negatives, some of my contact sheet books have gone amiss.
So the information is lost. Not such a catastrophe as neither developer is made today.

Wanting to be a bit more independent this time around I now make home-brew chemistry.
I have settled on Pyro 510 for HP5+ and FP4+.

HP5+ I use at 200asa, FP4+ 125asa or a half stop less. Never more. The difference is barely noticeable to me.
PYRO 510 1+100.
Both are developed for 4 minutes 45 seconds plus a 15 second drain. Ilford agitation. Sitting in a 20c water bath.

4 water stop baths, constant agitation for 30 seconds each.

Kodak F24 alkaline fixer, 4-5 minutes.

Good wash, then finally two drops of Tetenal (r.i.p.) Wetting Fluid.


I used the sequence John Finch demonstrates in his Youtube videos and book to find the asa values and developing time.
It is strange that both sets of results ended in the same developing times. It works fine for me.

I mixed up some Pyrocat HD a few months ago though I have not used it yet. I will go through the same testing sequence, then when I have some useable results post them here.

My developing times tend to be a lot shorter than other peoples experiences. I cannot account for that.

I hope this may be of interest to you pentaxuser

 

[Henning Serger]

Doing this stuff properly is indeed time consuming and there are all sorts of pitfalls.

I have to completely disagree here from my long year experience with different methods.
It is a very fast and comfortable method. And it saves me lots of time.

The endless discussions here on photrio about film-developer combinations , proper developing times, dilutions and agitation rhythms from members who do not use that helpful tool also demonstrates that.
I am also doing workshops in film development over many years: And for the participants it is always eye-opening how easy you can get to perfect individual results with this proper technique.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[GregY]

Henning, "The finer the grain, the better the tonal transitions / steps" & the ballon example are great concise descriptions of what's happening.Thank you!
I could happily live with only FP4+.......& the OP it seems doesn't make big enlargements so the difference is inconsequential or invisible to him.

 

[Henning Serger]

No doubt that is a scientific way to analyze personal results with camera/film/developer/processing but I would guess the $1,000 price of that instrument and labor of plotting curves for various films and developers is a significant disincentive for the average amateur photographer here. I know it is for me.

I'd love to try one out though!

Well, the price for the Heiland TRD-2 e.g. is 779€. That may look a bit much for some at the first view, but in reality it is really worth it, because
- you save so much time, because you need much less films and work time to reach your wanted results. Saved time = money
- photographers invest so much money in lots of cameras, lenses, but then don't get optimal results which were possible because the results of their film development are subpar.
- you don't need much labor of "plotting curves" as there are free available tools for it (e.g. excel based), or you just use millimeter-paper: ten seconds and you have your curve finished. And you don't even need to draw the curve, as with the reference values you have for each Zone, and your measured values you have all you need to know.

Here in this subforum you can say about the majority of threads: The member would not have needed to ask if he would test his film-developer combinations with this well proven method.
Or at least with the altenative methods.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Hello Keith,

SPUR HRX is a high-resolution developer (therefore also the HR in the name).
It combines extremely fine grain with excellent sharpness, which together results in optimal resolution.
It is a developer to fully exploit / to use to full capacity the outstanding detail rendition of HR-50, PanF+, TMX, Delta 100, Acros 100 II, Delta 400, TMY-2.
It has also a good shelf life. And with several films you can use it also as a (semi)compensating developer.

Weakness: Well in the "magic triangle" for developers of sharpness, fineness of grain and speed it is impossible to optimize all three at the same time. You can only optimize 1 to max. 2 of these three parameters, with at least one parameter you have to made compromises.
In the case of HRX the compromise is effective film speed, which is on average about 1/3 stop less compared to XT-3 (XTOL). It of course depends on the specific film.

Best regards,
Henning

Thank you. I just looked at the MSDS for HRX and it appears to be a strange brew.
As long as it does what the formulator intended, then it's all that matters.

 

[Henning Serger]

Henning, "The finer the grain, the better the tonal transitions / steps" & the ballon example are great concise descriptions of what's happening.Thank you!

You're welcome, Greg.
The balloon example was not created by me, I heard it first many years ago from a German photographer friend. But I think it is very "anschaulich" as we say in German.
So in English the terms graphic / descriptive / clear / demonstrative may be the right ones (I know, my English is horrible).

I could happily live with only FP4+.......& the OP it seems doesn't make big enlargements so the difference is inconsequential or invisible to him.

Well, as said above: Steven uses both FP4+ and HP5+ mainly in medium format, and with lower / moderate enlargement factors. And in that case indeed the differences in grain on the prints between FP4+ and HP5+ are visible, but not so big.

I like to print a bit bigger, and I want to be as close as possible to medium format quality with my 35mm format results. Therefore I like Delta 100 developed in HRX (in combination my my high-performance lenses), which offers me exactly that.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Thank you. I just looked at the MSDS for HRX and it appears to be a strange brew.
As long as it does what the formulator intended, then it's all that matters.

It isn't so strange, Keith. Please don't forget that in the MSDS only the "problematic" ingredients must be listed.
We just have to say "good-bye" to the idea that a developer with 1-2 developing agents is a "must". That way was choosen by the big companies mainly for cost reasons. And because it is less complicated for the chemist to design a developer with that ingredient limitation.
But when you are using e.g. three developing agents, you can also create better results with certain parameters, if you know your stuff / craft.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[GregY]

You're welcome, Greg.
The balloon example was not created by me, I heard it first many years ago from a German photographer friend. But I think it is very "anschaulich" as we say in German.
So in English the terms graphic / descriptive / clear / demonstrative may be the right ones (I know, my English is horrible).



Well, as said above: Steven uses both FP4+ and HP5+ mainly in medium format, and with lower / moderate enlargement factors. And in that case indeed the differences in grain on the prints between FP4+ and HP5+ are visible, but not so big.

I like to print a bit bigger, and I want to be as close as possible to medium format quality with my 35mm format results. Therefore I like Delta 100 developed in HRX (in combination my my high-performance lenses), which offers me exactly that.

Best regards,
Henning

Henning, I use MF/LF far more than 35mm & FP4+ in Pyrocat is my standard set up. For 35mm i typically don't enlarge to bigger than 11"x14." IMO a 16x20" or 20x24" from a 5x7" (or even 4x5") FP4+ negative exhibits exquisite tonal gradation (which i aim for more than clinical sharpness). Give me a Dagor or Tessar and FP4+ any day!

 

[Henning Serger]

IMO a 16x20" or 20x24" from a 5x7" (or even 4x5") FP4+ negative exhibits exquisite tonal gradation (which i aim for more than clinical sharpness).

Yes, I can completely agree.

Best regrads,
Henning

 

[Ian Grant]

Hello Ian,

I've used the alternative methods as well. And they can work very good as well with the needed knowledge. But using a densitometer and evaluating the CCs has the advantages of being
- extremely precise
- very fast
- very easy and comfortable.
I need less time for perfect results.

Best regards,
Henning

In some ways I'd disagree, having seen photographers like John Blakemore. Peter, Goldfield, Fay Godwin, teach photographers (on workshops) how to use the Zone System method of testing for personal film speed/development time for a chosen film/developer combination.

However, regardless of how that's done, whether practically or with a densitometer, it's then important to go out and explore these controls, and hone them. When to use N+ or N- exposure and development, how much, the effects.

In my case, although already an experience photographer, I chose a small location, close to home, and photographed it over a year in all weather conditions, variations of lighting. etc. I learnt far more from that, to the extent I had some diptychs where one shot was Christmas day frosty winter, alongside an image made mid-summer on a very sunny evening, and the images worked well together.

I've seen many photographers too obsessed with plotting curves to the extent it hampers them when it comes to image making. I spent some time with a member here some years ago, he'd done more than one workshop with Ansel Adams, gone down the wormhole of BTZS, so he overthought exposure, and that killed his creativity. He had severe heart failure and that was over 13 years ago, he stopped posting a year or so later.

Ian

 

[Henning Serger]

I've seen many photographers too obsessed with plotting curves to the extent it hampers them when it comes to image making.

Ian, and to avoid spending too much time in preparation for creative work, is exactly the reason why I've had so much excellent experiences with the procedure I've described above:
- it is very time saving
- it gives me perfect, precise results
- it saves me from doing multiple tests because of not precise enough methods.

When I am choosing my tools I always think about my way of photography: Is this the right tool to reach my wanted results? If yes, I go for it.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[GregY]

In some ways I'd disagree, having seen photographers like John Blakemore. Peter, Goldfield, Fay Godwin, teach photographers (on workshops) how to use the Zone System method of testing for personal film speed/development time for a chosen film/developer combination.

However, regardless of how that's done, whether practically or with a densitometer, it's then important to go out and explore these controls, and hone them. When to use N+ or N- exposure and development, how much, the effects.

In my case, although already an experience photographer, I chose a small location, close to home, and photographed it over a year in all weather conditions, variations of lighting. etc. I learnt far more from that, to the extent I had some diptychs where one shot was Christmas day frosty winter, alongside an image made mid-summer on a very sunny evening, and the images worked well together.

I've seen many photographers too obsessed with plotting curves to the extent it hampers them when it comes to image making. I spent some time with a member here some years ago, he'd done more than one workshop with Ansel Adams, gone down the wormhole of BTZS, so he overthought exposure, and that killed his creativity. He had severe heart failure and that was over 13 years ago, he stopped posting a year or so later.

Ian

Ian, IMO it depends where the photographer is on his learning curve/journey. Like great musicians....they've internalized their lessons and no longer consciously think about which notes to play. I had the chance to hang out with Jay Dusard for a week and see him in action in the darkroom. His prints and negatives are incredibly uniform and display exactly what he wants. On the other hand, you can talk about it, obsess about it and not do the actual work to get there. It's the old practice makes perfect. Or the line attributed to Ansel Adams about the garbage can being the most useful piece of equipment in the darkroom.

 

[Ian Grant]

Henning, I use MF/LF far more than 35mm & FP4+ in Pyrocat is my standard set up. For 35mm i typically don't enlarge to bigger than 11"x14." IMO a 16x20" or 20x24" from a 5x7" (or even 4x5") FP4+ negative exhibits exquisite tonal gradation (which i aim for more than clinical sharpness). Give me a Dagor or Tessar and FP4+ any day!

It's years since I used FP4 myself, 20"x16" prints off 5"x4" HP5 processed in Pyrocat HD are superb, as are larger. I shoot HP5 hand held in my Super Graphic, often with a 150mm f4.5 CZJ T (coated) Tessar.

Dagor's are useless, or so the seller of my 10x8 Agfa Ansco Commercial View told me 20 years ago, and he was a Professor of Photography from Portland, Maine, so knew what he was . . . . . . . . . . . In fact, it's a superb lens, he never even bothered to try it. I had contact with the original owner who had been a student then lecturer at the Clarence White School of Photography. He said he bought the best US made 10x8 camera and lens around 1940, he was probably right.

Ian

 

[takilmaboxer]

A slight digression- look at the curves in Post 131, which are normalized to one stop per division on both axes. The nearly straight part of the curve is eleven stops long! We are truly spoiled by these modern films!

 

[snusmumriken]

What all of my differnt curves have in common is that there is relatively good shadow detail with FP4+ (compared to other films with classic emulsion technology) because of a quite short toe.

Well that's something, anyway.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Lots of questionable generalizations. I don't know who came up with the finer the grain, the better the tonality, or whatever. How is that notion justified? Some of the finest grain films out there have miserable tonality; some of the grainiest films of former days had the best.

Second, good black and white transmission densitometers are not necessarily expensive. If you want a fancy programmable one, fine.

Now - curve structure. One has to factor in how much comprises the toe before the straight line portion launches off, no matter how long it is above that point. Otherwise, you're kidding yourself about real-world film speed. FP4 does indeed have a very long straight line with some developers. But it also have enough toe that I routinely shoot it at 50, not 100. Same with D100. And even then, it's hard to match the deep shadow gradation of TMax films at full box speed.

And if one has ever worked with old school "straight line" films like Super-XX or Bergger/Lotus 200, they understand the difference. FP4 is nowhere near in the same league when it comes to deep shadow rendition, even though it is an excellent general purpose film in my opinion. Yes, you can lower your effective film speed and get more of the scene up onto the straight line; but then if you do full development for optimal midtone expansion, the bolder DMax at the upper end might become unprintable on conventional silver projection papers. That's even more the case with HP5. I had to handle that kind of problem with supplemental masking.

Characteristic curves get altered not only via specific development method, but sometimes even by strong contrast filters. Deep blue filters are particularly notorious for skewing gamma in most pan films. Sometimes deep green can be a culprit. Just applying the correct filter factor does not remedy that. One more reason to own and use a densitometer.

I also take exception to anecdotal personal "evidence", like not having Newton ring problems with a particular film. Not everyone lives in the same kind of climate, or has the same kind of winter heating system in the darkroom. Here, I've tried at least 13 kinds of AN glass over the years; the right type is related to the angle of incidence of light in relation to the format size. What works best for large sheet film might not be ideal for small negative work. Unfortunately, there are only limited choices of glass today.

 

[Milpool]

That's true, and some developers will produce even lengthier straight lines (in particular some PQ formulas such as Ilford DD-X or Kodak TMax).

Some films also tend to have higher highlight contrast which can further extend the exposure range. Below is TMY-2, for example. I would say the longest linear density range I've seen is Fuji Acros.

A slight digression- look at the curves in Post 131, which are normalized to one stop per division on both axes. The nearly straight part of the curve is eleven stops long! We are truly spoiled by these modern films!