Arer these FP4+ results typical?

ericdan · May 26, 2014

I shoot a roll of FP4+ @200 on sunday. I developed it using ID-11 according to the instructions in the film packaging.
http://flic.kr/s/aHsjYoufF7

stock dev for 10 mins (agitate 10sec every min)
ilford stop bath for 10 seconds
ilford rapid fix for 3 mins
5 mins wash
30seconds fuji flo

I don't know what it is, but the photos don't look as punchy as I'd like them to be.
Would Tri-X at 200 be punchier? Or should I change something when developing the film?

Thanks

Ian Grant · May 26, 2014

You can change the contrast to give punchier images in the printing stage or post scanning - DPUG is the place to discuss that aspect.

Tri-X @ 200EI will give flatter negatives and greater detail in the tones, so would shooting FP4 at a slower speed.

Ian

Xmas · May 26, 2014

Where Ilford say

3 mins in rapid fix Id use 6 minutes
5 -10 mins wash Id use 10 minutes

this gets you archival permenance...

The EI you set on the meter depends on how you meter but it is less risky to shoot at half speed (50) for FP than double speed (200).

HP5+ at 200 if you need 200

Microphen (or similar Kodak) gets a 1/3 stop if you need speed.

Regular Rod · May 26, 2014

ericdan said:
I shoot a roll of FP4+ @200 on sunday. I developed it using ID-11 according to the instructions in the film packaging.
http://flic.kr/s/aHsjYoufF7

stock dev for 10 mins (agitate 10sec every min)

ilford stop bath for 10 seconds

ilford rapid fix for 3 mins

5 mins wash

30seconds fuji flo

I don't know what it is, but the photos don't look as punchy as I'd like them to be.
Would Tri-X at 200 be punchier? Or should I change something when developing the film?

Thanks

Change exposure not developer in this case. Box speed FP4 Plus is a good start (125 ISO)

RR

markbarendt · May 26, 2014

I think you are probably trying to solve the problem with the wrong variable, the film.

Yes, switching films will get you a different result but there's no telling if you'll like the result better and switching films for this type of issue is actually a classic symptom of magic bullet chasing. Magic bullets (magic film/developer combos) do not exist. Both FP4+ and Tri X are excellent, but both will also take work and adjustments to your process to get the exact result you prefer.

The punchiness of the print is adjustable, looking at the results you posted I'd say the issue is probably in your printing process, not the film choice or processing.

If you want punchier you can simply adjust to a harder paper grade rather than changing the film development. If you find yourself always adjusting to a harder grade you can experiment with upping the film development time to say 11 or 12 or whatever. The instructions provided suggest that the times listed are just a starting point, it is normal to have to adjust them.

There are many reasons why a contrast adjustment may be needed. One example is the camera lenses we choose, my old large format camera lenses seem to make negatives that need a little harder paper than my Mamiya or Nikons, my Holga even harder. Another example is the lighting of the scene, another is the subject matter itself, and yet another is your mood.

If the result you're judging is created digitally then there is a whole extra layer of complexity that may be hiding what the negative is really showing you and neither switching films nor adjusting development may change things the way you hope, nor even be necessary to get what you want.

ic-racer · May 26, 2014

Typical negatives have around seven-tenths the overall contrast of the original scene; keep this in mind when evaluating negatives on a light table. Print them on #3 paper and see how they look. If they are still lacking in contrast, increase development by 25% for the next roll.

hoffy · May 26, 2014

I personally don't think that the images are too flat. It also looked a bit overcast in a few of them. This will always have an effect.

But, of course, YMMV.

ericdan · May 26, 2014

That's right it was overcast. The blue sky just stated to show towards the end of the roll. I need to try FP4+ again on a sunny day and maybe at box speed and start experimenting from there.

Hatchetman · May 26, 2014

looks great to me. as noted, the printing process is where you can increase the contrast.

ericdan · May 26, 2014

I am still practicing the printing part. Thanks a lot for all the replies.

Richard S. (rich815) · May 26, 2014

Why did you shoot FP4+ at 200? What was your metering technique? Can you show us an example of what you'd consider the kind of "punch" you were hoping for in another image?

markbarendt · May 26, 2014

ericdan said:
I am still practicing the printing part.

We all are.

ericdan · May 26, 2014

I shot FP4+ because I wanted to try it out. Heard many good things about the film on this forum. My metering technique was sunny 16. So for hazy sun I go one stop down. F11 at 1/250th for most of them. Sometimes when I wanted to freeze the waves I shot it at f8 and 1/500th.
I shot Tri-X 400 at 400 a few week back. (I like those results better somehow) See here: https://flic.kr/s/aHsjYtemJF
Although this was also with flash mostly and on the GR1v.

markbarendt · May 26, 2014

I'm not understanding your "one stop down" thought.

f/11 at 1/250 is the same EV setting as f/16 at 1/125, as is f/8 at 1/500. Your settings are all variants of sunny 16 at box speed, EI 125, not EI 200.

Sunny 16 at EI 200 would be f/11 at 1/400 or f/16 at 1/200 or f/8 at 1/800.

Ian Grant · May 26, 2014

ericdan said:
That's right it was overcast. The blue sky just stated to show towards the end of the roll. I need to try FP4+ again on a sunny day and maybe at box speed and start experimenting from there.

Because it was overcast you got away with shooting @ 200EI. in fact that probably increased the contrast slightly in your favor. If you read Ansel Adams - Thwe Negative that would be around N+1 using the Zone System.

The Negative is one of the best books on Film exposure and processing well worth buying a copy.

Ian

ericdan · May 26, 2014

f/8 at 1/500 so I can freeze the wave. I understand that it's the same as f/11 at 1/250th.
My understanding of sunny 16 is: f/16 at 1/250th on a sunny day if I shoot iso200 film.
Since it was overcast but still bright I opened the aperture to f/11.
By 'sunny 16' i mean that I start at sunny 16 and then adjust according to the light. In this case opening up the aperture to f/11.
Maybe I should've kept it the same because the sand was almost white and reflecting, too.

Richard S. (rich815) · May 26, 2014

Seeing more info now and looking again at the images I think your contrast is in line as to what was to be expected. I see in your Flickr stream you shoot a lot of digital and often with flash and I see a lot of "punch". Perhaps used to that you find these FP4+ images lacking punch in your mind...

markbarendt · May 26, 2014

ericdan said:
f/8 at 1/500 so I can freeze the wave. I understand that it's the same as f/11 at 1/250th.
My understanding of sunny 16 is: f/16 at 1/250th on a sunny day if I shoot iso200 film.
Since it was overcast but still bright I opened the aperture to f/11.
By 'sunny 16' i mean that I start at sunny 16 and then adjust according to the light. In this case opening up the aperture to f/11.

I see your line of thought now.

ericdan said:
Maybe I should've kept it the same because the sand was almost white and reflecting, too.

You seem to be thinking about exposure like you are shooting slides or jpeg's; like there is a direct link between exact camera exposure and the result.

With negatives that isn't true.

Using FP4+ in DD-X for my normal subject matter, I can normally make almost exactly the same print from any frame shot anywhere between the EI's of 250 and 25, developed with RolloPyro FP4+'s range falls between EI's 160 and 6, at least for me.

Enlarger exposure is simply adjusted to "correct" for the variance in EI. Adjusting enlarger exposure allows me to pick the range of info I want off the negative.

In this illustration only the info between the red lines prints, the red lines are the black and white points of the paper. When printing nothing outside the lines shows detail. Adjusting enlarger exposure moves these lines up or down in tandem, adjusting paper grade moves the lines closer or further apart.

ic-racer · May 26, 2014

ericdan said:
That's right it was overcast. The blue sky just stated to show towards the end of the roll. I need to try FP4+ again on a sunny day and maybe at box speed and start experimenting from there.

Overcast days have about a 3 stop shorter brightness range than sunny days. Typically, when using rollfilm, one would print the frames from overcast scenes on a higher grade paper.

Jaf-Photo · May 26, 2014

I can't see your photo, but FP4 typically produces very smooth gradients.

If you want high contrast you have to add it afterwards.

I did shoot some FP4 at EI 400 by accident but it came out fine with XTOL.

RalphLambrecht · May 26, 2014

ericdan said:
I shoot a roll of FP4+ @200 on sunday. I developed it using ID-11 according to the instructions in the film packaging.
http://flic.kr/s/aHsjYoufF7

stock dev for 10 mins (agitate 10sec every min)

ilford stop bath for 10 seconds

ilford rapid fix for 3 mins

5 mins wash

30seconds fuji flo

I don't know what it is, but the photos don't look as punchy as I'd like them to be.
Would Tri-X at 200 be punchier? Or should I change something when developing the film?

Thanks

Your exposure and development is as contrastyas I would go with that film.If you want more ,it has to come from the printing.

bernard_L · May 26, 2014

How are the members of this forum to judge whether your negatives lack (or not) punch from a digitized version? The S***r adjusts (stretch/shrink) automagically the values present on the film to fit into 0-255. I don't dare go into details for fear my post would be deteted because referring to the D thing.
I recently under-developed some film (wrong published times) to a contrast index of 0.45, barely printable on grade 4.5. But my S***d files look quite good. As mentioned by other responders, what counts is what you can print under the enlarger.

Something else. From accumulated measurements with known good light meters, I found (and I'm not alone in that respect) that "sunny 16" should really be "sunny 11" in most cases. And, if significant open shadows are present (not dominant) in the picture, that becomes "sunny 8".

markbarendt · May 26, 2014

bernard_L said:
How are the members of this forum to judge whether your negatives lack (or not) punch from a digitized version?

Simple for me, the OP said so.

bernard_L said:
Something else. From accumulated measurements with known good light meters, I found (and I'm not alone in that respect) that "sunny 16" should really be "sunny 11" in most cases. And, if significant open shadows are present (not dominant) in the picture, that becomes "sunny 8".

Those are fair choices, simply because it gets you what you want.

It is really rare for me to "need" more exposure than box speed.

TheToadMen · May 26, 2014

Shoot two films of the same type on the same day under the same settings and with the same camera. Develop one film yourself and send one film to a professional lab. Then check witch negatives you like best.

Xmas · May 26, 2014

markbarendt said:
It is really rare for me to "need" more exposure than box speed.

The OP shot FP4+ @200 in ID11 that is less than box speed id not try 200 in Microphen...

Arer these FP4+ results typical?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency