Anyone Ever Shoot FP4 At 64 ?

[DF]

My prints don't have as much grey tones as I'd like - a little too contrasty, so I'm told to shoot FP4 at 64 instead of usual 125, and process/develop for 8:30 instead of 11 using D76 1:1. Any examples or advice anyone?

 

[kevs]

Hi DF,

Which paper / print dev are you using? Have you tried using a softer contrast grade? FP4+negs with a full tonal range print well for me at around Grade 2 or 3 in a condenser enlarger. You might need 3.5 in a diffuser enlarger.

Cheers and best of luck,
kevs.

 

[adelorenzo]

I shoot it that way. ISO 50, ID-11 at 1:1 (same as d-76) for 8 minutes or so. I just follow the Ilford development times. Not much to it really.

I don't have a lot of scans handy but here is one example.

 

[koraks]

My prints don't have as much grey tones as I'd like - a little too contrasty

If you put your negatives on a light table, do they show sufficient shadow detail? If so, your problem may as well be solved during printing.

The problem here is that there could be many things going on here. It may be the choice of subject matter and lighting. It may be how you meter the scene and decide on exposure. It may be choices during printing. It may be due to how you interpret 'as much grey tones as I'd like', which is rather subjective and the routes towards improvement may be very different depending on what you want to see.

Perhaps the best start would be to show some negatives (e.g. photographed on a light table) and some scans of prints where you explain what the problem is. That will help us narrow down the options a bit.

In general, talking about FP4+, I find that it does quite well when exposed at box speed and developed normally, but obviously (and @adelorenzo shows it quite well) it does quite well too if you overexpose by a stop or so. Metering technique is the variable that we rarely discuss in such situations, but it makes all the difference, so talking about EI without including metering habits will only tell part of the story.

As to development, I never much cared for D76 with its tendency towards and upswept curve where the highlights escalate a bit. I very much liked what I got from FP4+ in Pyrocat, which leans more towards a compensating effect, holding bright highlights somewhat in check.

 

[Neil Grant]

If you put your negatives on a light table, do they show sufficient shadow detail? If so, your problem may as well be solved during printing.

..are you serious? If you haven't got sufficient shadow detail in your negs you need to increase your camera exposure. FP4 handles 'overexposure' very well, especially in larger formats.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

My prints don't have as much grey tones as I'd like - a little too contrasty, so I'm told to shoot FP4 at 64 instead of usual 125, and process/develop for 8:30 instead of 11 using D76 1:1. Any examples or advice anyone?

should do the trick.

 

[koraks]

Maybe you misread my post. I said if there is already sufficient shadow detail, adjustment of printing parameters may solve the issue. In that case there is no need to overexpose - but as you point it, it won't hurt either.

 

[pwitkop]

The best answer is to test, honestly. And that can be as simple as trying a roll and seeing how you like it, and can be as complicated as you'd like to make it.

The simple answer is that yes that will reduce contrast. You might not need to adjust your exposure if you like your shadow detail, that difference in development time shouldn't have a big effect on the shadows. That said, my ei with fp4 is usually around 64-100, so it's not a bad idea to explore giving it a little more exposure

 

[removedacct1]

I routinely expose FP4 at around 64ASA and get excellent results. It can handle it. Best to try it for yourself and see if it delivers the desired change for your needs.

 

[darekdp]

I shoot FP4 at 64 ASA and develop in Pyrocat HD

 

[craigclu]

I've used a lot of FP4+ over the years and tend to read references to it on the net... I don't recall other films having such a wide range of personal exposure indexes. There are adamant users that rate it much faster but my experience has been the opposite. I needed to shoot it at 64 with most developers or deal with a long toe and lost shadow detail. In the old days, it got along well with FG7 for me. Recent years have had me using PyroCat MC and HD with easily printed negatives, controlled highlights and decent shadow detail retention.

 

[Vaughn]

I am afraid I set my meter at ASA100 for FP4+ because it is a nice roundish number that allows the f/stops and shutter speeds to line up nicely on the whole numbers from my Pentax Digital Spotmeter reading.

I also get good negs for pt/pd and carbon printing in either Ilford Universal PQ developer or PyrocatHD with the meter set there, but I probably still would If I set it at ASA125 or ASA64. Between changing light conditions, long exposures, different qualities of the light, different developers and developing conditions, different printing processes, different images, and all that, slight changes in ASA on the meter are secondary.

In my last workshop we developed six 4x5 sheets of Tri-X that were exposed and developed as if they were FP4+, and they still made great carbon prints. That is how good FP4+ is!

 

[CMoore]

I am just a beginner (Still) but it sounds like you are talking about a different scenario.?

 

[CMoore]

"Neil Grant, post: 2225649

If you put your negatives on a light table, do they show sufficient shadow detail? If so, your problem may as well be solved during printing.

..are you serious? If you haven't got sufficient shadow detail in your negs you need to increase your camera exposure. FP4 handles 'overexposure' very well, especially in larger formats.


-------------------------------------------

I am just a beginner (Still) but it sounds like you are talking about a different scenario than Koraks.?

 

[DF]

Perhaps it would help to mention my agitation technique/style - It may be the/a reason for want of more grey tones: I agitate continuously the first minute, then each preceding minute for roughly 15 seconds, rolling the canister forward 3 maybe four times: next minute it's the same thing except the rolls are reverse, again 3-4 times or whenever the 15 seconds are up. The "rolls" are smooth and continuous, not jerky or harsh.
Might my style be too much - too long - too whatever?

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I shoot at EI 32-80, depending on subject brightness range.

 

[craigclu]

Perhaps it would help to mention my agitation technique/style - It may be the/a reason for want of more grey tones: I agitate continuously the first minute, then each preceding minute for roughly 15 seconds, rolling the canister forward 3 maybe four times: next minute it's the same thing except the rolls are reverse, again 3-4 times or whenever the 15 seconds are up. The "rolls" are smooth and continuous, not jerky or harsh.
Might my style be too much - too long - too whatever?

FWIW - I use a minute of -very- gentle inversions, followed by 2 gentle inversions every 2 minutes. This helps to tame the blown highlights for me and I am still getting even development (Xtol 1:2 and PyroCat 1:1:100 are my main developers these days). I'm not a "soot & chalk" fan, so perhaps I am sensitive to these things...?

 

[john_s]

Someone around here wrote "expose for the shadows, develop for the mid tones, and agitate for the highlights."

Over the years my negs have become better and easier to print. One reason is more gentle agitation and not so frequent.

 

[darkosaric]

I have find out (for B&W) that I don't see any difference in one stop exposure. Not saying that other cannot see the difference, but I develop on box speed if over or under expose one stop.

 

[ic-racer]

Testing your exposure index is easy as is setting development time.
A negative of a uniform target exposed 4 stops under, should block 1/3 stop light when held over your meter.

A negative of a uniform target exposed 3 stops over, should print just off-white when developed properly. For example you should just see a shadow of a coin on the printing paper.

 

[blockend]

Rodinal 1:50 14 mins slightly outdated FP4+ @ 64 ASA.
!!! I've edited the above as I originally quoted for Fomapan 100 @ 64 ASA, which typically requires about half the development time of FP4+ in the same chemistry.

 

[takilmaboxer]

Here's another way to do it. I make several exposures of the test scene, chosen for a full brightness range from deep shadows to white highlights. In the dark room, I set up for a contact print with negs in contact with the paper (no sleeves). Using a card, I do a step test of exposures at 2 second intervals. Process, and examine the contact sheet under strong light. The point where the paper no longer gets any blacker with more exposure, when exposed through the blank part of the negative, defines my print time. For Ilford RC in my dark room this is 15 seconds at f/16. The negative that produces the best looking print on the sheet, and still has shadow detail, determines the ASA. For me, using FP4, this is ASA 100 in D76 at 8 minutes at 68F. The contrast can be varied by varying the development time.
There are perfectly good sensitometric reasons why this method works, and after 50 years of photography I understand them well (Many thanks to Tom Knight at Humboldt State University), but this has become my standard method. FP4 can be overexposed by two or three stops and still print well, so there's no reason to try ASA 64. If I have time I always do a second exposure one stop over, just to be sure.

 

[Peter Schrager]

I am afraid I set my meter at ASA100 for FP4+ because it is a nice roundish number that allows the f/stops and shutter speeds to line up nicely on the whole numbers from my Pentax Digital Spotmeter reading.

I also get good negs for pt/pd and carbon printing in either Ilford Universal PQ developer or PyrocatHD with the meter set there, but I probably still would If I set it at ASA125 or ASA64. Between changing light conditions, long exposures, different qualities of the light, different developers and developing conditions, different printing processes, different images, and all that, slight changes in ASA on the meter are secondary.

In my last workshop we developed six 4x5 sheets of Tri-X that were exposed and developed as if they were FP4+, and they still made great carbon prints. That is how good FP4+ is!

I find you to be exactly correct Vaughn
100 speed is the sweet spot..my negative rarely miss

 

[John51]

Using FP4 to test my new to me OM2n, one pic was taken at +2 stops, so asa 32.

It was obviously lighter on the contact print. I made another contact print at -1 stop and the density was correct. +2 in camera = -1 at the enlarger.

Studying the contacts, the +2 neg has lost some highlight detail but the skin tones are, imo, as good as the regular negs. It was processed at N, a shorter time would have helped for 32 asa.

There are reports of FP4 being rated as high as 6400. Depends on how fussed you are about shadow detail I guess.

 

[blockend]

There are reports of FP4 being rated as high as 6400. Depends on how fussed you are about shadow detail I guess.

The more extreme speeds quoted should be taken with caution. They are often from people who don't understand what they're doing, or are trying a achieve a graphic effect most of us would not recognise as "photographic". The internet is not peer reviewed!

The only slow-medium film I've pushed successfully, and the manufacturers claim a speed increase for, is Fomapan 100. The instructions quote a 2-stop advantage with appropriate development (100 to 400 ASA). Pushing 3 stops to 800 things begin to fall apart, grain and contrast become uncontrollable. Pushing slower films is generally sub-optimal.