The last time I used FP4+ I liked it at 64-80 in D-76: I didn't like it at EI125: midtones didn't seem open and clean.
Has someone compared in recent years both types of developers to see if current FP4+ remains better in Perceptol (metol) than in MQ developers when speed is secondary?
I have not found good prints scans, only negative scans, on the web.
All comments about general FP4+ behaviour, different EIs and about it in MQ / M developers are the subjects here, thanks.
I have several gallon packs of Perceptol and D-76, and this film has been optimized for those two for decades.
Please no Xtol / Rodinal comments.
Here's an interesting post on FP4+, from 2010 (by 2F/2F):
Hi,
FP4 is my main medium-speed b/w film.
One reason it often looks muddy is that it does not maintain its tonal relationships very well when either underexposed or overexposed. Quite frankly, most people underexpose and overexpose everything they shoot most of the time (and this does not even get into the variables encountered with processing), because they use reflected light meters that read the composition, as opposed to either tonal placement or a measurement of the light source (incident metering). Another reason is that most people aren't very good printers, so don't know how to best recover from poor exposure and contrast issues. Another reason is that when you are looking on line at photos, you are seeing photos from any old Joe Blow, and there are also some technical issues that have to do with how photos are viewed on computer screens (digitization, calibration, etc.).
FP4 is somewhat "old school" in that it will readily compress highlights, which some people love and some people hate. I really like it for most things I shoot. However, this feature means that perfect exposure is more important than with some films. If you overexpose, you noticeably (with the naked eye) lose contrast with FP4. This is not the case with HP5, and certainly not with Delta 100 and 400, T-Max, etc. These films can capture high-end detail till the cows come home. Not so with FP4. As I said, depending on the shot, this is either a good thing or a bad thing.
On the low end, where you might expect the same to apply (except it is called toe instead of shoulder), you actually get up onto the straight line of the curve relatively quickly for a traditionally-grained emulsion. FP4 has plenty of "bite" in the low tones, and handles underexposure better than it handles overexposure IME.
I like the film because it is naturally punchy and dramatic in the low tones, yet delicate and gentle in the high tones. However, the high end can also be given a little kick with overdevelopment.
IME, HP5 is almost exactly the opposite. It is the low tones and mids that are soft and can easily become compressed ("mushy") or lost, and the high tones that bite.
I rate FP4 at 200 for use with the Zone System (one of the only films that I rate higher than box speed when doing tonal placement), and at box speed for standard exposure (incident or sunny 16/exposure chart). I use HC-110 dilution B for normal and harsh negs, and dilution H for softer negs. I have also used it with Rodinal and D-23, but I like HC-110 best for general purposes.
The film can get grainy. It is not like Delta or T-Max, with which you need to try to find the grain. It is there, and can readily be brought out even more by either sloppy exposure and processing or purposeful manipulation.
I think it is a great all-around medium-speed b/w film. If I had to pick one, FP4 would be it. However, I supplement it with T-Max 100 for certain applications (flat light, long exposures, when I want extreme sharpness and/or lack of visible grain, etc.).