Can one avoid grainyMESS with this film? Ilford FP4 Plus and Emulsive.org link

[igmolinav]

Hi,

How are you guys doing? I hope very well : )!!!

I came across this great article about three years ago perhaps.

This is the article:

Cheatsheet: ILFORD FP4 PLUS development times - EI 100 to EI 6400

Over the years I've built up a large bank of development times and schemes for many black and white films, old and new;

emulsive.org

I use the word 'great' because long time ago, more than ten
years ago the idea of fine grain and iso 6400 may have sounded
a bit remote. I mean, at least for many people I knew and who were
using a regular developer.

When I came across the article, as you can see, there are no
sample pictures and I was a bit curious to see some of the work
done as the article suggested. Unfortunately, the article has no
pictures. However, a post I saw on my facebook feed done by
a photographer and that unfortunately I can not find right now,
showed some very nice fine-grained pictures of Ilford FP4 Plus
pushed to 6400 iso.

My question is: Have you tried this or a similar procedure, or any
procedure at all in which you get (very) fine grain at 6400 iso with
Ilford FP4 Plus or any other film with an iso between 80 and 200?

Thank you very much in advance, kind regards,

Ig : )!!!

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Just curious: why would you want to push a low ISO film that high unless you wanted a very grainy look? That's usually why people do it, as there are plenty of high-speed films that can easily be pushed to 6400 and deliver fine-grain results with the proper developer — I've used HP5+ @ 6400 with Ilfotec DD-X with excellent fine-grain (or as fine as it can get with such a push) results.

And I wouldn't rely on "a post I saw on my facebook feed done by a photographer... showed some very nice fine-grained pictures of Ilford FP4 Plus pushed to 6400 iso." You can erase a lot of graininess with Lightroom, so unless you know how it was post-processed on the computer, don't rely on photos seen on the web to tell you anything.

All this said, to try to answer your question, you'll need a solvent developper that gives you lots of speed. My suggestion would be DD-X, as it is easily available. The Film Developing Cookbook suggests it for extreme pushing. TFDC also gives the formula for two high-speed developers now discontinued, FX 20 (Acuspeed) and Perfection XR-1.

 

[BMbikerider]

Trying to do something with a material which would be well out of it's optimum range would compare with a Cessna light aircraft trying to enter combat with a F35. Totally unsuitable.

 

[250swb]

I think it's 'collector syndrome', some people collect pipes but don't smoke, and some people collect formula's but don't make photographs (beyond testing). Pushing FP4 to 6400 ISO probably possible but fine grain compared to what, and is the tonal range good and usable when out with the camera in varying conditions? Lab experiments may work in the lab but not anywhere else. Ultimately it's like being lost and asking a stranger for directions and they reply 'well I wouldn't start from here'.

 

[koraks]

long time ago, more than ten
years ago the idea of fine grain and iso 6400 may have sounded
a bit remote.

And it still is. Nothing fundamental has changed in terms of emulsion technology over the past 30-35 years. The laws of physics remain unaltered, too. The net result is that if you underexpose FP4+ by 5 stops, you're pushing even the mid tones into the abyss of undevelopable darkness. Sure, you'll get an image. But it won't make much sense in most applications. For 'artistic purposes', anything can of course be exploited. If your concept calls for imagery where only the upper mid tones and highlights are rendered and the rest is pitch black, then this approach might work as well as a number of other options. For general photography, it'll be virtually useless.

And I wouldn't rely on "a post I saw on my facebook feed done by a photographer... showed some very nice fine-grained pictures of Ilford FP4 Plus pushed to 6400 iso.

Certainly not. You never know how they actually metered the scene, and more often than not, such experiments are conducted by people with relatively limited understanding of the underlying theory. They might be metering at effectively EI400 or 800 and think they're working at 6400 just because they pointed their meter at a dark part of the scene. They might be scanning a negative with wafer thin shadow density that will never print decently, and boost that massively through digital trickery. Etc.

There's no magic trick that will make a 100 speed film into an acceptable 6400 speed film.

 

[faberryman]

From the linked article:

"The tables below show both real world tested and untested (extrapolated) development times for ILFORD FP4 PLUS." [emphasis added]

 

[Alex Benjamin]

From the linked article:

"The tables below show both real world tested and untested (extrapolated) development times for ILFORD FP4 PLUS." [emphasis added]

I would add that even without the "untested," the whole thing is meaningless. "Tested" means absolutely nothing if you don't give the parameters of the test, what you're trying to achieve or determine, and the results. In this case, far from referring to any type of scientific process or analysis, "tested" seems to meaning nothing more than "I tried it and got some images I liked."

 

[faberryman]

I would add that even without the "untested," the whole thing is meaningless. "Tested" means absolutely nothing if you don't give the parameters of the test, what you're trying to achieve or determine, and the results. In this case, far from referring to any type of scientific process or analysis, "tested" seems to meaning nothing more than "I tried it and got some images I liked."

I might also add that his normal development times for FP4+ at box speed are shorter than Ilford's recommended times, possibly because he agitates the entire first minute of development. Anybody here ever heard that recommended? For example, his time using Ilford LC29 at 1:9 at 70° is shorter than Ilford's recommended time at 75°. One might wonder if any of the times were actually tested, or whether he was just doodling around with a spreadsheet based on who knows what assumptions.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I might also add that his normal development times for FP4+ at box speed are shorter than Ilford's recommended times, possibly because he agitates the entire first minute of development. Anybody here ever heard that recommended? For example, his time using Ilford LC29 at 1:9 at 70° is shorter than Ilford's recommended time at 75°. One might wonder if any of the times were actually tested, or whether he was just doodling around with a spreadsheet based on who knows what assumptions.

Indeed. That's why I would change his "tested" for "tried." In the absence of methods and results, we could speculate endlessly. But that would be quite a waste of time.

Still wish the OP would chime in and tells us why he's eager to try FP4+ at 6400, and hoping for grainless results...

 

[igmolinav]

Hi,

Thank you for your messages : )!!!

Because of work I apologize for the delay.

I'll go ahead and try to comment on your
kinnd comments.

Thank you again, kind regards,

Ig : )!!!

 

[GregY]

I love love FP4..... 35mm 120 4x5 5x7..... i like it's smoothness & tonality in big prints.
But i would not care to take such liberties with it.

 

[igmolinav]

Just curious: why would you want to push a low ISO film that high unless you wanted a very grainy look? That's usually why people do it, as there are plenty of high-speed films that can easily be pushed to 6400 and deliver fine-grain results with the proper developer — I've used HP5+ @ 6400 with Ilfotec DD-X with excellent fine-grain (or as fine as it can get with such a push) results.

And I wouldn't rely on "a post I saw on my facebook feed done by a photographer... showed some very nice fine-grained pictures of Ilford FP4 Plus pushed to 6400 iso." You can erase a lot of graininess with Lightroom, so unless you know how it was post-processed on the computer, don't rely on photos seen on the web to tell you anything.

All this said, to try to answer your question, you'll need a solvent developper that gives you lots of speed. My suggestion would be DD-X, as it is easily available. The Film Developing Cookbook suggests it for extreme pushing. TFDC also gives the formula for two high-speed developers now discontinued, FX 20 (Acuspeed) and Perfection XR-1.

Hi Alex,

Thank you for all your kind messages : )!!!

I'll try to answer to all your messages.

Yes, that is what caught my attention and hope: To be able to push a fine grain film, that after being pushed it stays very fine. The grainy look has never been my interest for using film. I actually avoid grain as much as possible, and keep enlargements to the point that grain is shown the least.

I wouldn't rely myself on a facebook post as well. That's why I wanted to ask you guys if you had tried develping Ilford FP4 Plus as suggested in the emulsive.org cheatsheet. Have you tried it yet, or have you tried with another low iso film?

I am curious about stand development. I have never tried. I wonder if that may be helpful when pushing some low iso films.

A joke: A man/woman enters into a bar and ..... and the joke is that the man or woman can not take a picture at the bar because the iso can not be pushed high enough, for example, pushed to 6400, with the grain staying fine grained.

Thank you again, kind regards,

Ig : )!!!

 

[igmolinav]

Trying to do something with a material which would be well out of it's optimum range would compare with a Cessna light aircraft trying to enter combat with a F35. Totally unsuitable.

Hi,

Thank you for your message : )!!!

If understood your analogy, I would say the opposite: Totally suitable : )!!!

I mean, I want fine grain, plus high sensitivity! One should be able to get
- in the general sense - out of the material, (film, paper, chemicals, etc.),
what one may need to get out of them in order to get the desired results.

So, if it is a small drone at high speed, then it is perfect; and if it is a F35
at the speed of light, then that's perfect too. At the end, is your wish,
your goal, your desire, your art - anything you may want to call it, and
it should be achievable. At least, for the most part.

I would like to get fine grained pictures at a bar at night, for example, as
I mentioned in the previous post. That means nice fine grained images
when in dark or low light place, like in a bar. How do I go about it?
Moreover, you may say something like: "800 or 1600 iso is enough, with
f/4 and 1/15th of a second, or similar, you should be able to do well". Yes,
and that is fine too. That can work out in several situations, but I it would
also be cool getting images up to 6400iso with good fine grain. What do
you think?

Thank you again, kind regards,

Ig : )!!!

 

[igmolinav]

I think it's 'collector syndrome', some people collect pipes but don't smoke, and some people collect formula's but don't make photographs (beyond testing). Pushing FP4 to 6400 ISO probably possible but fine grain compared to what, and is the tonal range good and usable when out with the camera in varying conditions? Lab experiments may work in the lab but not anywhere else. Ultimately it's like being lost and asking a stranger for directions and they reply 'well I wouldn't start from here'.

Hi,

Thank you for your message : )!!!

Good point, very interesting what you mention! To make it more concrete. Most people would agree that almost any negative size printed at a paper sized 4x5", or 5x7" should show (almost) no grain. Most people would agree, I think, that grain, or grainyness, - or grainyMESS, as I say it - may start to show well in prints that are at least 8x10" in the worst case scenarios. Using a fine grained film should give you good surprises - good surprises = (almost) no grainyMESS - even at sizes 8x10", and 11x14". Or at least, that is my recollection when i printed the last time. What do you think?

Thank you again, kind regards,

Ig : )!!!

 

[igmolinav]

And it still is. Nothing fundamental has changed in terms of emulsion technology over the past 30-35 years. The laws of physics remain unaltered, too. The net result is that if you underexpose FP4+ by 5 stops, you're pushing even the mid tones into the abyss of undevelopable darkness. Sure, you'll get an image. But it won't make much sense in most applications. For 'artistic purposes', anything can of course be exploited. If your concept calls for imagery where only the upper mid tones and highlights are rendered and the rest is pitch black, then this approach might work as well as a number of other options. For general photography, it'll be virtually useless.



Certainly not. You never know how they actually metered the scene, and more often than not, such experiments are conducted by people with relatively limited understanding of the underlying theory. They might be metering at effectively EI400 or 800 and think they're working at 6400 just because they pointed their meter at a dark part of the scene. They might be scanning a negative with wafer thin shadow density that will never print decently, and boost that massively through digital trickery. Etc.

There's no magic trick that will make a 100 speed film into an acceptable 6400 speed film.

Hi,

Thank you for your message : )!!!

Yes, as mentioned before, it will be used for quasi-artistic purposes: pictures taken at a bar at night, a play or performance in a theater, darker settings, etc. No, the purpose is not for general photography.

Yes, and that is also what I'm trying to find out: how much 6400iso can/may I get out of a fine-grained low iso film like FP4 Plus?

Thank you again, kind regards,

Ig : )!!!

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Yes, that is what caught my attention and hope: To be able to push a fine grain film, that after being pushed it stays very fine. The grainy look has never been my interest for using film. I actually avoid grain as much as possible, and keep enlargements to the point that grain is shown the least.

Hi igmolinav. I understand better what you are trying to achieve, although I still don't know why your choice of film for this is FP4+. I encourage you to experiment, but I think that, if you are looking for no grain, you'll be disappointed.

Honestly, as data, the emulsive article is worthless. Any film, no matter what ISO, can be pushed. That's a given. But what matters is the result, and these vary according to film, developer, time, etc. An article that doesn't, in some way, show (or at least describe) the results of the tests doesn't amount to anything serious.

The other given is the more you push a film, the more grain you'll get. So if you are looking for a low-grain result at 6400, use a 400 film instead of a 125 film, even though the 400 film is grainier than the 125 film at its normal speed.

The other thing is that you don't give the format you are using for your plan. I do see you have 35mm written in your profile, but if that's the case, you'll have even more problems shooting a film at 6400 without noticeable grain. Go at least for medium format, 6x9 if you are used to the 35mm ratio.

I've had very nice results in 6x7 with HP5+ at 1600 in DD-X, following The Film Developing Cookbook's advice. There is a recent thread about pushing film here:

Potassium sulfite for extreme pushing?

Anchell and Troop, in the Film Developing Cookbook 2nd ed. (p. 122), recommend Ilford DDX as the best developer for extreme pushing. I assume that extreme pushing means a two-stop or more push. Based on French research, they theorize the use of potassium sulfite instead of sodium sulfite in DDX...

www.photrio.com

Good luck !

 

[MarkS]

If you require EI 6400, use Kodak TMax P3200 and TEST it. 12-15 years ago, when I was photographing local musicians in my favorite neighborhood bar, I shot P3200 (at 3200) and developed it in XTOL1:1. I got very good and repeatable results, without excessive contrast. Easily printed and both the musicians and myself were happy.
I'll suggest that as a good starting point; grain will be what it is... but P3200 is far, far superior to any 400-speed film in these circumstances. I can't imagine any kind of success here using a slower film.

 

[igmolinav]

From the linked article:

"The tables below show both real world tested and untested (extrapolated) development times for ILFORD FP4 PLUS." [emphasis added]

Hi,

Thank you for your message : )!!!

It is what I have been trying to fish out of my facebook without any luck so far.
But this person had made some pictures at 6400iso with Ilford FP4 Plus.

Thank you again, kind regards,

Ig : )!!!

 

[Alex Benjamin]

But this person had made some pictures at 6400iso with Ilford FP4 Plus.

Nowhere does he say he's made pictures at 6400 with FP4+. He essentially says he has times for pushing one to two stop, from which he extrapolates further pushing times.

Furthermore, he doesn't show any of his results.

I'm confused as to why you insist on basing your own work, and spending so much time, on such mediocre evidence.

 

[igmolinav]

I love love FP4..... 35mm 120 4x5 5x7..... i like it's smoothness & tonality in big prints.
But i would not care to take such liberties with it.

Hi,

Thank you for your message : )!!!

One of the reasons fr this 'quest', if you will, to succesfully use Ilford FP4 Plus
at such a high iso is also due to the advantage that it would be when using a
large format camera. A LF camera is way less luminous than a MF and 35mm.
camera. Where I live the best time to do portraits is in the evening, otherwise
light is extremely harsh. It comes very handy a film that would mantain its
fine grain even when pushed. Since in your profile says that you like shooting
large format, is that comment this.

Thank you again, kind regards,

Ig : )!!!

 

[igmolinav]

Nowhere does he say he's made pictures at 6400 with FP4+. He essentially says he has times for pushing one to two stop, from which he extrapolates further pushing times.

Furthermore, he doesn't show any of his results.

I'm confused as to why you insist on basing your own work, and spending so much time, on such mediocre evidence.

Hello Alex,

Thank you for your message : )!!!

Yes, the man behind the emulsive.org shows no evidence. I saw the article long, long
time ago, but it showed no evidence. I agree with you, if there is no evidence is hard
to have a clearer idea. I even dismissed the article as it didn't show any photographs.

It was this facebook post, of either a group I am following, or a photographer I follow
on facebook - not a facebook friend - that showed this time the emulsive article
with no pictures, just the way it is now, but this photographer did post some examples
made by him. So he posted the article and said: "I tried this and it worked". At that
very moment, i thought how cool that must be!

INTERESTING UPDATE : )!!!

I just found this guy : )!!! He is part of a group called: Hasselblad 500 users.

Here is his profile:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/464075740433840/user/507159588/

It is the eighth post down the line, dated December 12th, 2022.

My mistake. The film was developed to 1600iso, but if you follow the dialogue,
you will see that he mentions having pushed the film to iso 3200. Something
that I still find quite amazing. Please read the dialogue of that post.

Thank you again, very kind regards,

Ig : )!!!

 

[faberryman]

It is what I have been trying to fish out of my facebook without any luck so far.
But this person had made some pictures at 6400iso with Ilford FP4 Plus.

I think the best thing for you to do is to expose FP4+ at 6400, process it according to his tables, and judge for yourself. Please share your results.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I think the best thing for you to do is to expose FP4+ at 6400, process it according to his tables, and judge for yourself. Please share your results.

+1

 

[Helge]

Would probably benefit from a preflash and/or latensification and very gentle long development.

 

[snusmumriken]

Push processing involves longer development. Longer development (of the same emulsion) means bigger grain. You can't escape this. In addition, shadow areas will be empty of detail because you are in effect under-exposing. If you want to shoot in dimly-lit bars, choose a fast emulsion (ie one that will record an image with less exposure).

But if you insist...

I think the best thing for you to do is to expose FP4+ at 6400, process it according to his tables, and judge for yourself. Please share your results.

+1 more. As you can see, we are mostly rather sceptical.