Current FP4+ users? D-76/ID-11 and Perceptol?

[snusmumriken]

I personally detest the current trend of taking older classic work and blowing it up like a billboard. And it's a downright silly to state that one didn't "notice grain" at a 50X enlargement. Heck, at that size the whole thing is downright mush anyway if you view it up close. All it is, is a billboard, intended for a "normal viewing distance" of a quarter mile away, going past it at 70mph. What the heck does that prove?

With respect, I suggest it proves that if you view a good photo at such a distance that you can appreciate the whole composition, graininess is not a distraction; and that if you move in closer you shouldn't be surprised if you see grain. You can't easily dismiss a large print as a 'billboard': it is designed for particular viewing conditions, as is a contact print from a 10"x8" neg, or a projected colour slide, or an online image.

FP4 has been around since 1955. I took the picture posted above ("Duck killed by falling apples") about 30 years ago with some memorable Ilford advertising of the 1960s in mind - and because I happened to have a dead duck. Although sharper, finer-grained films are now available, I feel FP4 can still offer beautiful tonality with inconsequential grain size. Presumably that is also why Ilford haven't retired it.

But of course there are many ways to make beautiful photographs. (And fresh ways are constantly being discovered to make bad ones.)

 

[DREW WILEY]

You don't need to suggest anything, thank you. I've been around the block. The fact that a lot of older work is now being reinterpreted in excessively large scale for sake of effect doesn't necessarily mean that's what the original photographer would have wanted. Some did that kind of presentation in their own time, most didn't. I find a lot of it today just lemming mentality - following what others are doing at moment. But that's been the character of public art for millennia. Somebody builds a big marble coliseum for gladiator shows, and the next city over thinks they need an even bigger one. Same with medieval cathedrals. Now photos. I have every right to critique what I perceive as mostly a mere fad. Note that I stated "mostly", not exclusively. I remember when 8x10 color contact prints were the predictable museum fad instead, back in the 70's, whether done well or not (mostly not - many were miserably printed; but that itself seems to have been the let-it-all-hang-out "artsy" route at the time).

FP4 might have been around a long time, but not in the same exact fashion as now. It's gradually evolved. I still have a now-useless box of 4X5 laying around from back when the emulsion was so fragile they had to place interleafing paper between every single sheet of film. Now it's officially FP4-plus instead, but otherwise has long been noted for its great versatility. It's what I started with in black and white photography, back when I used exclusively a 4X5 Sinar monorail with a single lens. I "salvage" re-printed some of my earliest shots last year, now that the problem is so much easier due to the advent of very high quality of VC papers. But otherwise, I quickly learned to expose and develop FP4 better, and thus got very good graded paper result relatively early on, soon after my beginner bellyflop phase. It's the "go-to" film I consistently recommend to beginners.

 

[warden]

With respect, I suggest it proves that if you view a good photo at such a distance that you can appreciate the whole composition, graininess is not a distraction; ...

I agree, and have enjoyed seeing some ridiculously large prints from 35mm. It's fun to see them in a gallery setting where there is sufficient room to take it all in (I'm thinking Fukase, Eggleston, etc), and then get your nose up to it and see the loads of grain.

I followed the link to your site Jonathan, and enjoyed myself while there. You've got a good eye and can capture humor too, which is hard to do.

 

[snusmumriken]

I followed the link to your site Jonathan, and enjoyed myself while there.

Thank you so much - grateful that you bothered and very happy that you were entertained.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Bingo. The massive ink-jetting of Eggleston's tiny intimate works certainly spoiled their charm, and made them look like just more of the same, just another over-packaged box of cereal sold by volume and not by weight. Pretty disappointing compared to the original small dye transfer prints; the ho hum overblown re-strikes just don't convey the same message. The framing is awfully disappointing too, even amateurish. A visual crime, really. Sorry to see him fall into that commercialistic trap, though the high prices still go to the dye transfer portfolios instead.

Meyerowitz has wisely returned to having his early 35mm work dye-transfer printed instead of being turned into me too above-the-sofa Stinkjet decor. His large prints are from 8x10 originals.

What I like least of all are these new "immersive experience" projection shows that one pays good money for, yet never sees anything authentic. I guess it's fine for someone wanting an educational introduction to the historic and personal contexts of certain artists. But that was long available through basic slide shows and competent art history teachers. I find the whole current trend tacky, like paying money to engage in a paintball arcade fight. At least they don't claim to be a substitute for viewing actual original paintings and so forth. But I think its wiser to present the works of an artist in line with his original media limitation itself, rather than some technological reinterpretation which turns it into something else entirely.

I admire Brett Weston for burning many of his negatives so nobody else could print them, or misinterpret his own intent; but that didn't stop secondary marketing per se, based on scans of his prints, which thankfully, have been rather faithful to his own look so far.

 

[warden]

The Eggleston show included his smaller dye transfers as well as the larger prints, so there was space for the old guard to poo-poo the new stuff and enjoy the smaller prints, while others enjoyed the big prints. Me, I liked it all.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, that's nice. But things started going south for him long ago, before Inkjet ever was an option, when he tried going large to begin with. I'm not claiming it never works for 35mm originals, but certainly not in his case. It's like just adding more and more water to the soup until it's not the same thing at all. No, I don't poo-poo the new ones; I'd rather outright poop on them. One reason I so seldom go to museums and galleries any more - It's all gotten Sooooo predictable. One unthinking lemming in line after another, after another, after another ....... But then everyone will get fed up, and a whole new trend will dominate, probably tiny Minox contact prints one after another, after another ....,

 

[warden]

Well, that's nice. But things started going south for him long ago, before Inkjet ever was an option, when he tried going large to begin with. I'm not claiming it never works for 35mm originals, but certainly not in his case. It's like just adding more and water to the soup until it's not the same thing at all. No, I don't poo-poo the new ones; I'd rather outright poop on them. One reason I so seldom go to museums and galleries any more - It's all gotten Sooooo predictable. One unthinking lemming in line after another, after another, after another ....... But then everyone will get fed up, and a whole new trend will dominate, probably Minox contact prints one after another, after another ....,

I agree about the heading south I suppose, but not for the reason of print size. (I mean, none of the big prints I saw were new work, and the smaller prints are right there to be enjoyed if that's more your speed. They didn't destroy the smaller prints.) It's more for lack of editing. It seems there is a new Eggleston tome every couple of years now with another thousand previously unpublished images from the 1950s or whatever. A little more selectivity would be better IMHO but I suppose scholars and completists might like the new/old stuff that keeps coming out. It's not for me.

I'm thankful there are a few decent museums nearby and I make use of them. I aim for the smaller crowds, but it's more because I want additional time with the work rather than looking down on the other admirers as unthinking lemmings. (?)

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, I'm not disagreeing with you. But the mere fact of the sheer ease of large reproduction today via scanning and digital printing makes the probability of winging-it, print-wise, all the more likely. My personal skepticism would ask, that if one encountered some of those very same over-blown pictures somewhere else, entirely detached from the Eggleston signature, would they be impressed at all? I sure wouldn't be, not in the way I was with the intimate little small scale versions when neither I, nor nearly anyone else, even knew who Eggleston was. The shoe doesn't fit.

There are excellent museums here too. The Oakland Museum has one of the finest photographic collection in the West, even in the world when it comes to famous West Coast photographers of the past. SFMMA sometimes has excellent photo shows; but otherwise, I have zero interest in seeing another six hundred utterly redundant Warhols or Avedons. I do give them credit for buying certain exceptional collections of otherwise entirely unknown amateur photographers. I do the same. I love the quirkiness and unpredictable nature of antique amateur prints. If I want larger scale things suitable for framing, I already have hundreds of my own prints to fit that niche. Now I need an indoor cordless bulldozer to squeeze them all somewhere. Running out of big flat file space. Pity my heirs.

 

[warden]

My personal skepticism would ask, that if one encountered some of those very same over-blown pictures somewhere else, entirely detached from the Eggleston signature, would they be impressed at all?

Probably not, because I think the interest lies, in this case, with seeing the old familiar Egglestons that most fans know were made with tiny negatives, printed shockingly large. (I thought they looked great but taste is subjective and all that.)

If similar work were made by a modern unknown artist I would be wondering why the prints are large for starters, and why they didn't use a camera suited to large prints, which is easy to accomplish these days after all. An unknown newcomer would have to clear a higher conceptual hurdle than Eggleston, with the small negative + huge print size combination being critical to the meaning of the newcomer's project somehow. And if that doesn't happen, then it's just huge prints for the sake of making huge prints.

(My apologies to Juan for not talking about Perceptol for a while.)

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yeah ...We've been on a tangent. But the issue of size of scale does actually play into the whole Perceptol / Dektol discussion - not in terms of color work like Eggleston's, but certainly with respect to analogous black and white blowing-up. For example, although I printed color for an entire decade before I ever even tried black and white photography, the very first b&w print I ever attempted turned out to be a dumb luck classic. It was a 4X5 FP4 shot taken in the softly lit falling snow with overlapping rows of bare aspens in the background. And it just happened that I developed it in Perceptol in such a manner the acutance was actually softened a bit rather than sharpened. And then after a week of fooling around, I ended up doing the final prints on Grade I Portriga. Everything had an almost melted look like the falling snow itself - not unsharp at all - it was after all, a well-focused large format shot - but extremely subtle and unlike any other aspen grove print I've ever seen.

If I had grabbed a packet of 76 (and I had plenty of that on hand for developing Cibachrome masks), instead of "incorrectly" experimenting with Perceptol, the same look wouldn't have happened. Beginner's Luck, I guess. The next two years of b&w printing, well .... not so lucky; but my main game was color back then anyway.

 

[NB23]

All I can say is that Ilfosol-3 solves a lot of problems.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oh, FP4 is super-compatible with many different developers. It's a hard film to screw up. Most of this is just the basics - reasonably correct exposure and development time. I just happen to like that something extra special which staining pyro formulas lend to the game. But if 76 or Perceptol is what you standardize on - no crime at all.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

Well I use FP4 in D76 at 1:1 and have used nothing else for many years. Perhaps I'm missing out on these wonderful variations.

Its a good a combination and one I have been using for years. D76 or ID11, which ever is the cheapest at the time of purchase.
I am nearly out of it and I am considering trying Bellini FOTO Euro HC at 1+49. I will let you look that up on the Web. Apparently a near copy of HC 110 but claims better sharpness.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Two points to add:


· Different dilutions of the same developer give very different results. Perceptol at 1+3 is a very different developer than perceptol stock, giving more speed, and (apparently, as Lex aptly put it) sharper negatives at the cost of grain - which, by the way, adds to the illusion of sharpness.

· Resolution and apparent sharpness (acutance) are different things. Perceptol stock is a high resolution developer, while perceptol 1+3 is a good sharpness developer.


(By arraga, photo.net, 2006)


"Fine grain developers like Perceptol work by softening the edges of the grain thus limiting resolution." - No they don't. The grains, or rather grain clumps, are just reduced in size, they're not softened at all.

The reduction in acutance with solvent type developers is a result of "physical" development, which doesn't give rise to edge effects; whereas pure chemical development (ie non-solvent) does.

Some tests that I've done recently completely turn conventional wisdom on its head anyway.

I can show you the same film and subject developed in Rodinal, which has a reputation for high sharpness, and in ID-11, which is reputed to have a "soft" image. The detail revealed by ID-11 is far greater than that from the Rodinal negs. This is simply because Rodinal's massive grain and poor shadow rendering obscure image detail that ID-11 is able to resolve.


(By Pete Andrews, photo.net, 2006)

 

[Helge]

Juan, this is FP4+ in Perceptol, available window light. I'm afraid it's a edge-sharpened scan of the 35mm negative. The white specks visible in the detail are a dust problem in the scanner.

View attachment 296480
View attachment 296484

Gotta say, that is an absolutely gorgeous photo.
The tonality, the composition, the motif.
Reminds me of Roman still life mosaics and paintings of food, in it’s 2 1/2D ness.

Matts snow is also not half bad.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I've long been familiar with 1:1 Perceptol. But at 1:3 it's an entirely different animal, and I experimented with a number of films at that dilution last year. It worked wonders for increasing the otherwise disappointing acutance of TMax100 while maintaining excellent sharpness, but made TMax400 and Delta 100 visibly grainy instead, and almost ruined the look of Acros. I see no sense for that dilution with respect to FP4 either, which does just fine at ordinary 1:1. Just for the fun of it, I still have one roll of 120 Tri-X laying around, and might see if I can achieve really accentuated grain using 1:3, since Tri-X is quite grainy to begin with.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I can show you the same film and subject developed in Rodinal, which has a reputation for high sharpness, and in ID-11, which is reputed to have a "soft" image. The detail revealed by ID-11 is far greater than that from the Rodinal negs. This is simply because Rodinal's massive grain and poor shadow rendering obscure image detail that ID-11 is able to resolve.


(By Pete Andrews, photo.net, 2006)

And this mirrors what Richard Henry's microdensitometry study found - and what anyone who uses these developers with even a fragment of process control will observe if printing using a good enlarger/ lens or a scanner with good MTF.

I'd add that 1+3 and 1+1 ID-11/ D-76 with FP4+ are much harder to distinguish than people might assume - and that 1+0 might have a small edge in terms of maximising low frequency sharpness & minimising high frequency sharpness obscuring visual granularity.

 

[Helge]

And this mirrors what Richard Henry's microdensitometry study found - and what anyone who uses these developers with even a fragment of process control will observe if printing using a good enlarger/ lens or a scanner with good MTF.

I'd add that 1+3 and 1+1 ID-11/ D-76 with FP4+ are much harder to distinguish than people might assume - and that 1+0 might have a small edge in terms of maximising low frequency sharpness & minimising high frequency sharpness obscuring visual granularity.

“1+0“ what’s that? Stock?

 

[snusmumriken]

Gotta say, that is an absolutely gorgeous photo.
The tonality, the composition, the motif.
Reminds me of Roman still life mosaics and paintings of food, in it’s 2 1/2D ness.

Thank you so much, Helge! Made a memorable meal too.

 

[Lachlan Young]

“1+0“ what’s that? Stock?

Yes, not that it matters, it's the same thing.

 

[Helge]

Yes, not that it matters, it's the same thing.

I'd think that it matters a lot. Never seen that notation used like that.

 

[MattKing]

I'd think that it matters a lot. Never seen that notation used like that.

I see it all the time now.
It makes a lot of sense in a table that lists several dilutions, and the corresponding development times for each such dilution.
Something like this made up example.

Dilution	20C Dev Time
1 + 0	5.0 minute
1 + 1	7.0 minute
1 + 2	10.5 minute
1 + 3	12.0 minute
1 + 5	13.0 minute

 

[Helge]

I see it all the time now.
It makes a lot of sense in a table that lists several dilutions, and the corresponding development times for each such dilution.
Something like this made up example.

Dilution	20C Dev Time
1 + 0	5.0 minute
1 + 1	7.0 minute
1 + 2	10.5 minute
1 + 3	12.0 minute
1 + 5	13.0 minute

Yes it does, but only after reassurance and explanation.
Is it common in general chemistry, like “x:x”?
“Stock” would be self explanatory.

 

[MattKing]

“Stock” would be self explanatory.

It would, to many.
But I think we are encountering new nomenclature, as the internet supplants printed materials for so many.
It sort of needs the context of the multi-entry table to be easy to understand.