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

[pentaxuser]

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

Yes but I don't know why We can't be very far off the point where someone will produce a wonder film worthy of being called 6400 and yet have all the benefits of fine grain just like FP4 In fact isn't there signs that such a thing has already started?

pentaxuser

 

[faberryman]

Yes but I don't know why We can't be very far off the point where someone will produce a wonder film worthy of being called 6400 and yet have all the benefits of fine grain just like FP4 In fact isn't there signs that such a thing has already started?

Smiley face duly noted, but consider that TMax 3200 was introduced in 1988 and Ilford Delta 3200 was introduced in 1998, so 35 and 25 years ago, respectively. And despite the 3200 in their names, TMax 3200 is an ISO 800 film and Delta 3200 is an ISO 1000 film. At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, I don't see an ISO 6400 film coming down the pike. I just hope both companies continue to offer their current product line.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Seems like somebody is always trying to promote some magic elixir which turns lead into gold.

 

[Film-Niko]

Seems like somebody is always trying to promote some magic elixir which turns lead into gold.

Yes.
How do you call them in the States: Snake Oil Peddlers ......?!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yes. Recalls the old patent medicine wagons pulled by mules through the West, ending up in frontier town and fairs, selling their "snake oil" cure-all elixirs. Now the internet does that. The world will never run out of fools.

 

[MattKing]

Yes but I don't know why We can't be very far off the point where someone will produce a wonder film worthy of being called 6400 and yet have all the benefits of fine grain just like FP4 In fact isn't there signs that such a thing has already started?

pentaxuser

IIRC, PE posted about Eastman Kodak having apparently trialed such a film, that would have been developed using heat.
There were all sorts of characteristics though that made it impractical and impossible to effectively market.

 

[pentaxuser]

Seems like somebody is always trying to promote some magic elixir which turns lead into gold.

Yes. It seems to work as well in terms of sales

 

[DREW WILEY]

People used to give me all kinds of old how-to magazines for sake of a chuckle, especially regarding the ads. You'd see ads in 1950's Popular Mechanics, "Drill you own water well using your own electric drill", showing a stack of 6 ft long extension bits one was supposed to chuck into their toyish high RPM 1/4 inch drill. Of course, everything would instantly break, and one might get hurt. But the sheer nerve of something that ridiculous was representative of the suckers of those years. And those old magazines were filled with those kinds of ads.

Later someone came to me with an ad torn out of a recent woodworking magazine claiming to offer a solution which turned pine wood into real oak hardwood, and asked me if we carried that too. I told him no, but that the same company which sells a solution which turns lead into gold probably stocks it. Then he asked me for the address.

 

[igmolinav]

Hi, I made a mistake here. I was hesitant to delete because I thought I may delete the entire thread.
I just wanted to delete this very message. Sorry, and thank you again : )!!!

 

[chuckroast]

It's also worth noting that there is no such thing as actually increasing effective ASA in any big way.

Increased development per the N+ disciplines of Zone System will increase real ASA slightly, but these "push" schemes to get 4x effective speed are an illusion.

All you're doing in that case is severely underexposing the shadows and massively cranking up the highlight contrast (more often than not to the point of blocking the highlights).

This can be a useful aesthetic tool but it's not actually increasing the film's sensitivity to light in any significant amount.

 

[BMbikerider]

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 : )!!!

Nurse he's out of bed again!

 

[M-88]

I've read the article and the comments of "happy users" as well. Since Rodinal is the only thing I have at hand at the moment, I decided to give it a try. I didn't go all the way to EI 6400 because Rodinal would already mean above average grain and EI 6400 seemed like an overkill to me. The weather was sunny this morning, so all of my shots were taken at 1/1000, f/16-f/22, meaning something like EV18-EV19. I shot ten frames and developed the film in Rodinal 1+25. Sadly I forgot to do an inversion, so the film suffers from heavy bromide drag. Because of this, I scanned only three frames, which had less drag. Here they are:

And here's a photo of the strip itself:

Is it a grainy mess? Frankly I expected worse and I've done worse back when I tried to push Kentmere 100 to EI 800.
Would one be able to print from these negatives?.. I once actually printed a picture from such terrible negative! But at the same time, my miserable experience and wasted sheets of magic paper prompted me to always expose the negative properly - it's a key to less headache in the darkroom.
Would I try molesting my FP4+ again? Absolutely not. Even with HP5+ I only go up to EI 1600, but if OP or anyone else wants to try it, I think it's doable. Especially if using a developer with less grain than what Rodinal has to offer.

Cheers,

M.

Edit: I metered at EI 3200, with camera's internal, average meter.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks for trying this, M88. can I take it that this was FP4 at about EI 1000/1250 based on your light conditions of bright sun and your shutter speed?

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

The only thing going on is that about four stops of shadow value and lower gray scale are being lopped off, with the balance getting overdeveloped to make it marginally printable, in a salvaging sense. All kinds of developers might be potentially employed in that sort of act of desperation.

 

[Craig]

I've read the article and the comments of "happy users" as well.

The chatbot will say whatever you ask it to say.

 

[M-88]

Thanks for trying this, M88. can I take it that this was FP4 at about EI 1000/1250 based on your light conditions of bright sun and your shutter speed?

pentaxuser

Oh, my bad! I forgot to mention that I measured with my camera's internal meter, at EI 3200. It's Nikon FM, pretty basic, no spot readout, no matrix or anything like that.

 

[snusmumriken]

Oh, my bad! I forgot to mention that I measured with my camera's internal meter, at EI 3200. It's Nikon FM, pretty basic, no spot readout, no matrix or anything like that.

Many congratulations for actually doing the trial.

 

[ic-racer]

There is no ISO 6400 film.