FP4+ What am I missing?

[snusmumriken]

Well dokko did give a pretty good summation of the original question, IMO

pentaxuser

I thought so too.

 

[oxcanary]

I’m sorry I gave an opinion earlier which was about why I liked the film in question. I hoped to learn more about photography. Alarmed at my age to discover more about people! This may not be fair of me, but is anyone else bored now?

 

[Mark J]

Not in the slightest !

 

[BobUK]

I’m sorry I gave an opinion earlier which was about why I liked the film in question. I hoped to learn more about photography. Alarmed at my age to discover more about people! This may not be fair of me, but is anyone else bored now?

If you are getting bored, just imagine being in a lifeboat with this Priest.

FATHER AUSTEN PURCELL, FATHER TED - Search Videos

www.bing.com

 

[GregY]

If you are getting bored, just imagine being in a lifeboat with this Priest.

FATHER AUSTEN PURCELL, FATHER TED - Search Videos

www.bing.com

 

[JWMster]

Drew: Thank you for throwing yourself into this. I've put a bit of time into processing better and come to follow Bruce Birnbaum's book where he suggests his own practice of differentiating HP5 for lower contrast shots, and I think it was FP4 for normal. I forget which his 3rd film was. Given my proclivities for Orange Filters, HP5 is just easier to get a shutter speed that allows for more than still life. One thing that you wrote about Newton rings pricked my memory: Even though you're using them on an enlarger, is there not some way to eliminate 1 level of glass (reducimg your chances of rings) by wet mounting the way we do on a scanner? Yes, it's a newby question you've likely tried.... and its likely the other way round that wet mounting BEGAN with enlargers before getting adopted by scanning folks. Is that a "Duh?"

Henninger: For me Zone is useful as a structure for identifying dynamic range, and picking where you want your shadows to fall and which highlights you'll have to may have to give up. My densitometer works to about 1 guestimated decimal place or so on an analog meter.... it is old and was cheap. And I think I'm more interested in using it... or finding I'm simply confirming the steps of a process that's basically turning out pretty decent shots following in the footsteps of others and working the math.

As a guy who's still amazed that just about everything seems to come out the way I want it... no matter how I screw it up (e.g. recently realized in the midst of development I'd diluted D23 1:3 rather than used Stock as I'd originally planned, and had to recompute my development time for infrequent 3 min agitation on the fly), I'm clearly still shy of actively using N+1 or N-1.... due to the roll film thing. Yes, Bruce Birnbaum suggests a different back for each contrast level in shooting roll film, but I've not done that. With 6X7 it's only 10 shots and I should just force myself to learn the virtues. Haven't, but I will.

Sadly, I've been more reluctant to do the 4X5 I've got in the freezer than I thought I'd be....'cause of the carry / time issues. So my level of craft and my level of intentionality in shooting isn't ART or anywhere near what I'm sure you and/or Drew produce on even a bad day, but it's workable. Recognizing and admitting limits? Sure. At 67, the remaining time of my life can probably push the boundaries some more, but I wish there were a more recognized source text for formalizing craft film-to-scanned-negative-and-ink-print as there is with traditional wet darkroom. My first wet scans impress me that I've been wasting a lot of time with dry scanning. I think about a wet darkroom, but face a reality that my remaining active years not only set realistic limits on existing space, money, etc. but conspire to push against what I'm able to do today.

So there's always the digital-to-ink process or even digital-to-web... where the challenge physical aspect of the hobby.... is less fulfilling, but sometimes you have to go there (event photos).

 

[pentaxuser]

come to follow Bruce Birnbaum's book where he suggests his own practice of differentiating HP5 for lower contrast shots, and I think it was FP4 for normal.

This seems to be the perennial mystery: Is HP5+ an intrinsically lower contrast film than FP4+ on a ceteris paribus basis i.e. based on the respective times for the two films in the same developer?

I am unaware of any scientific comparison tests, do they exist?

Certainly on most UTube tests HP5+ seems lower contrast than, say, Tri-X but others say this is down to Kodak and Ilford recommending dev times that produce this. This may be true but as the 2 films in question here are both Ilford films I'd have thought that in an Ilford developer used at Ilford times any difference in contrast could be ruled out?

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hi, JWM - Single side glass never worked for me. In fact, any kind of precision enlarging requires carrier glass both sides. But I also started out with the Cibachrome color process and large format film, where pin registered masks are involved, which require a completely tight sandwich during projection. I sometimes also use supplemental masks in black and white printing, so that's how my darkroom has been equipped.

Fluid carriers for enlarging were once made by Carlwen; but repeatedly doing all that cleanup afterwards might tax the lifespan of the negative or chrome involved, and is less than ideal for sandwiched negs, so I never went that particular route; but yes, it preceded scanning fluids by decades.

As far as HP5 goes, yeah, it's not the best film for high contrast shots, although by use of supplementary masking during printing, along with a staining pyro developer, I can significantly improve its printing characteristics of those kinds of scenes. But that's more work, requiring special gear. FP4 has better shadow gradation. So I agree with Barnbaum on that point.

But if you want both faster film speed plus even better deep shadow gradation, the only logical choice is Kodak TMax400, which costs more. Most of my own 120 film shooting is with TMax 100 instead; but the 400 speed version obviously makes handheld shooting even easier. I frequently need to shoot in high winds where a tripod isn't realistic, but do always have a tripod along.

 

[JWMster]

Thanks for the TMAX400 rec. I've probably been too pigheaded about Kodak self-immolation and should probably just suck it up and go with the flow where the benefits are real. I've got PyrocatHD up next to learn to deal with..

With an RB67, my backpack has "friends". Is this less "carry" than 4X5....? Not by much. I have another bag for my 2 other lenses in the trinity and a bag for Lee filters, tools, filmbacks. All that goes in the car. I cut down to just the camera, Pentax spot meter, filter in use + holder, and tripod or monopod for the actual "walking around". Sometimes I feel like it's a bit of overkill... but it DOES force you to have at least one shot in mind before heading out, and those tend to be my better shots.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Even my Pentax 6x7 with two lenses weighs as much or more than my lighter weight 4x5 kit, depending on how many film holders are along. With a couple of 6x9 roll film holders, they weigh about the same. But an RB kit would weigh more than either.

For several decades, when I was younger, I carried a heavier Sinar 4x5 in a classic external frame backpack many thousands of miles on foot - hundreds of backpacking trips. A shoulder bag would have left me crippled.

 

[Pioneer]

Even my Pentax 6x7 with two lenses weighs as much or more than my lighter weight 4x5 kit, depending on how many film holders are along. With a couple of 6x9 roll film holders, they weigh about the same. But an RB kit would weigh more than either.

For several decades, when I was younger, I carried a heavier Sinar 4x5 in a classic external frame backpack many thousands of miles on foot - hundreds of backpacking trips. A shoulder bag would have left me crippled.

That is why you need a horse Drew.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

This seems to be the perennial mystery: Is HP5+ an intrinsically lower contrast film than FP4+ on a ceteris paribus basis i.e. based on the respective times for the two films in the same developer?

I am unaware of any scientific comparison tests, do they exist?

Certainly on most UTube tests HP5+ seems lower contrast than, say, Tri-X but others say this is down to Kodak and Ilford recommending dev times that produce this. This may be true but as the 2 films in question here are both Ilford films I'd have thought that in an Ilford developer used at Ilford times any difference in contrast could be ruled out?

pentaxuser

If developed to the same relative degree. the contrast should be comparable. I am not sure that Ilford's recommendations are as accurate as might be desired. A few years ago I did a lot of testing of various films in FX-39. with the goal of achieving similar contrast. I had to vary dilutions to get the best results, with faster films I diluted less, and with slow film I diluted more.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Problem is, I sold the pasture when I sold the house. Too much annual forest fire prevention work for someone my age now. And most of the places I like to go aren't accessible to horses. I did go through the typical teenage rite of passage of working one summer for a high country pack station.
They used mule trains for the loads, but half-broken Nevada mustangs for the cowboy roping chores because those were high spirited and seemingly tireless. I got bucked off enough. But my own horse at home was a pet appaloosa more interested in play than work.
There are quite a few recreational riders in this neighborhood, with lots of trails. But my cats have trained me to always be home on time so they can get promptly fed.

 

[Steven Lee]

But my cats have trained me to always be home on time so they can get promptly fed.

Hahaha. I wish I could see their typical training session. Let me guess: they threatened to scratch your film?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Fortunately, the darkrooms, framing area, etc, are in a completely different building. Once in a awhile one out the outdoor cats tries to sneak in there, but rarely gets past the shop area. That's important, because it's the only place on the property where I can hide when they demand the Butler (me).

I got even with a house cat yesterday playing Gold finch songs on the web, while real Gold finches were singing outside - it drove her crazy trying to find it.

 

[Pioneer]

Problem is, I sold the pasture when I sold the house. Too much annual forest fire prevention work for someone my age now. And most of the places I like to go aren't accessible to horses. I did go through the typical teenage rite of passage of working one summer for a high country pack station.
They used mule trains for the loads, but half-broken Nevada mustangs for the cowboy roping chores because those were high spirited and seemingly tireless. I got bucked off enough. But my own horse at home was a pet appaloosa more interested in play than work.
There are quite a few recreational riders in this neighborhood, with lots of trails. But my cats have trained me to always be home on time so they can get promptly fed.

When I was younger I rode, or almost rode, enough mustangs that carrying my camera is good enough for me, and far easier on my cameras. I leave that kind of fun to my son nowadays. My half broken mustangs now have V8s under the hood.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ah ... Not terribly long ago I reprinted a 4x5 neg of a wild mustang herd in central NV taken with a 450 lens, with huge cumulus clouds in the sky. They can be awfully skittish.

 

[BrianShaw]

Yep, those huge cumulus clouds sure can be skittish!

 

[Don_ih]

Yep, those huge cumulus clouds sure can be skittish!

I thought he meant 4x5 negatives?

 

[Vaughn]

When I was younger I rode, or almost rode, enough mustangs that carrying my camera is good enough for me, and far easier on my cameras. I leave that kind of fun to my son nowadays. My half broken mustangs now have V8s under the hood.

Since all my work in contact printed, grain is a minor issue. FP4+ matches the needs of my printing processes and images better than HP5+.

I packed mules during all of the 1980s...haven't been of a horse since. My steed these days is: