Can you make HP5+ look like FP4+?

RauschenOderKorn · Mar 10, 2017

banandrew said:
Thanks for the info and encouragement. I think I will look into it before my next darkroom session. I've read that it will only have a small effect on RC papers, so maybe this is also the time to get a box of FB paper too.

RC papers do tone, unfortunately the Internet is not always an accurate source of information.

The effect of the toner depends mostly on the emulsion, the rc base is not the most important factor. With your current paper, you have a feeling of the results you can achieve with your process, and you have material to compare against. I would see that as a big advantage - changing paper will add a lot of uncertainty.

Both selenium toning and gold toning can be done at sight in daylight. For a start best put two trays next to each other, one with a copy of the print in water to compare and one with the print in the toner. Then you can see the effect over time.

Tim Rudmans book: it goes deep and is very expensive - but also very good. If you just want to give gold and selenium toning a try, just do it! No big book needed for that!

MattKing · Mar 10, 2017

This is a scan of a toned print on Ilford RC paper:

banandrew · Mar 10, 2017

MattKing said:
This is a scan of a toned print on Ilford RC paper:
View attachment 174828

Very cool photo Matt, what toner did you use for that?

banandrew · Mar 10, 2017

Thanks Rauschen and Thomas, Unfortunately the library doesn't have a copy of that book. I will probably just get a bottle of Selenium the next time I'm getting supplies and try it on some of my already made prints. I think that's a good point, getting a good feel for how the paper behaves is probably better than jumping to different papers, and comparing side by side to visualize the effect of the toning times. Time to try something new!

MattKing · Mar 11, 2017

banandrew said:
Very cool photo Matt, what toner did you use for that?

Thanks - that is Kodak Sepia II (of which I now have used my last package).
The trick is to adjust the length of the bleach time, in order to vary the end effect.

Thomas Bertilsson · Mar 11, 2017

MattKing said:
Thanks - that is Kodak Sepia II (of which I now have used my last package).
The trick is to adjust the length of the bleach time, in order to vary the end effect.

I've had good success doing partial toning with indirect toners like Kodak Sepia, and Kodak Sepia II (warmer than the regular one). Instead of varying the time in the bleach, I dilute the bleach a fair bit more instead, to 1+20 from the stock solution, or even 1+50 or 1+100 if I want a really subtle toning effect in the highlights only. It helps insure even results because the print can be in the bleach for minutes instead of seconds.
Just one more method, adding to the possibilities.

Gerald C Koch · Mar 11, 2017

This is mostly a rhetorical question and I'm not really seeking an answer. If you like the look of FP4+ why not just use it. That would seem logical to me.

Thomas Bertilsson · Mar 11, 2017

Gerald C Koch said:
This is mostly a rhetorical question and I'm not really seeking an answer. If you like the look of FP4+ why not just use it. That would seem logical to me.

Film speed?

banandrew · Mar 11, 2017

Thomas Bertilsson said:
Film speed?

Basically this.

I am transitioning to fp4+ in 35mm and have a bulk roll in my loader right now, so I'm committed to using it as my main film. It's just limiting with the overcast weather here in BC, so I was curious about using HP5 occasionally and doing a little extra work to get the prints to look the way I want them.

removed account4 · Mar 11, 2017

hey OP

over expose your film like mad
and stand develop it all in caffenol C with a spike of print developer for 30 mins
all your film will look exactly the same... maybe not how you want it to look but it
will be something you can work with ... to make you stuff seem similar.

Gerald C Koch · Mar 11, 2017

The box speed difference between the two films is not that much (less than 2 stops). Using a speed increasing developer and the latitude built into FP4+ will give you an equivalent speed.

MattKing · Mar 11, 2017

I understand where banandrew is coming from.
Today in our area, "sunny 16" was more like "soggy 2.8".
That being said, the shot of the trees above was shot on decades old T-Max 100, rated at an EI of 50.

Thomas Bertilsson · Mar 12, 2017

Gerald C Koch said:
The box speed difference between the two films is not that much (less than 2 stops). Using a speed increasing developer and the latitude built into FP4+ will give you an equivalent speed.

Speed enhancing developers used with HP5 will give an increase in film speed too, and it pushes better than FP4. It looks great at EI 1000 in developers like DD-X, and gives acceptable results to 3200. You might get EI 250 out of FP4 before it falls apart in the shadows. HP5 is very flexible for that purpose because of its relatively low inherent contrast.
Film speed difference of 2 stops can make a genuine difference, either with respect to motion blur in dark scenes (theater, concerts, streets at night, etc), or with respect to hand holding. You just have more freedom with it. For slow shutter speeds, simply add ND filters.

NJH · Mar 12, 2017

I think if one is looking for a faster film to pair with FP4 you may be better off using Delta 400 as a previous poster proposed. Darkroom Dave for example uses this combination, his notes are here:
http://www.darkroomdave.com/tutorial/process-times-for-ilford-fp4-sfx-and-delta-400/

Thomas Bertilsson · Mar 12, 2017

NJH said:
I think if one is looking for a faster film to pair with FP4 you may be better off using Delta 400 as a previous poster proposed. Darkroom Dave for example uses this combination, his notes are here:
http://www.darkroomdave.com/tutorial/process-times-for-ilford-fp4-sfx-and-delta-400/

I have in the past used TMax 400 and FP4+ side by side, as they can be confusingly similar in print. About equally sharp, with similar tone production. I stopped using FP4+ at the time, because with the new TMY-2 the grain was so fine there was no need to use the slower film. If I wanted longer exposure times, I could just add ND filters.

NJH · Mar 12, 2017

Yeah along similar lines Thomas I might well standardise on Delta 400 in DD-X.

banandrew · Mar 12, 2017

MattKing said:
Today in our area, "sunny 16" was more like "soggy 2.8".

LMAOOOO exactly Matt

Maybe I'll try some Delta 400. I will also check the Kodak film prices but last time I looked a few years ago they were typically more expensive than Ilford films in Canada.

Can you make HP5+ look like FP4+?

RauschenOderKorn

MattKing

Moderator

banandrew

banandrew

MattKing

Moderator

Thomas Bertilsson

Gerald C Koch

Thomas Bertilsson

banandrew

removed account4

Gerald C Koch

MattKing

Moderator

Thomas Bertilsson

NJH

Thomas Bertilsson

NJH

banandrew

Can you make HP5+ look like FP4+?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency