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

[MattKing]

Here is 35mm Plus-X in replenished X-Tol:

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

Closest I've got is a 6x4.5 Plus-X negative in replenished HC-110 dil E
296456

Lovely tones! Nice!

 

[bernard_L]

FP4 is somewhat "old school" in that it will readily compress highlights,

So many opinions expressed in this thread. Without any supporting evidence, image or technical data. Except from Matt King.
Here is the D-logE curve measured by the folks at fotoimport.no.

Compressed highlights ???
This can be found at https://fotoimport.no/fkd76, but by default you will see curves for TMax100, which is why I inserted the actual curve for FP4. Just to have the proper context, I reproduce the comment:

About the curve
The X-axis shows the density of film. The Y-axis shows the exposure, one step is 1/2 f-stop.
The blue straight curve start with the sensitivity point (D-max 0.1) and ends at D-max 1.3 over 7 f-stops. This is the part of the curve that are used printing on normal grade photographic paper. More information in the text block about test procedure.

So we have 14 f-stops of clean, straight curve. Compressed highlights...

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

The snow image is beautiful, Matt!

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hi Bernard,
I didn't say what you quoted as my words...
How would you answer my question about differences between D-76 and Perceptol for current FP4+?

 

[snusmumriken]

Juan, you asked about M developers as well as MQ. I can't offer a print scan, but I use FP4+ quite a lot in 35mm. I generally use Barry Thornton's 2-bath developer, which is a metol-only developer and restrains highlights by intention. I find the results aesthetically pleasing and easily printable, including highlights. I am sometimes disappointed where mid-tone separation is critical (e.g. if the shot contains a lot of monotonous vegetation), and I believe that to be a downside of my developer choice. For that reason I have sometimes been tempted to use ID-11 instead, but have always then been disappointed by loss of acutance compared with the BT2B. I assume that is due to a solvent effect in ID-11, but I have no expertise in that area.

I also use Delta 100, again in BT2B. It gives biting detail and a fresh clean modern aesthetic. However, I can never decide which of the two films I prefer, so I vacillate between them. My better shots seem randomly scattered among my hopeful ones, so they aren't associated with one or another film type. I guess that will make large format users cringe.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Hi Jonathan, thanks for coming in...
Yes, BT2B is a great developer, especially for direct sunlight, as I understand you implied.
I think Bernard was right when he said no one has brought evidence here, but mostly no evidence about my question (D-76 and Perceptol differences), I mean I haven't either, nor has Matt... I guess no one will ever show here two prints as large as to see grain and acutance from both developers comparing the same scene, but I remember I did it once, and yes, there was a difference: more than grain size, its character. Perceptol's grain is smaller anyway, but more than that, I like the organization of Perceptol's grain: it's more even while being sharp, so maybe for 120 there's no practical difference, but for portraiture in 35mm, I think I'll use Perceptol because I have some gallons to mix during a few years. But for 120 both of them work well IMO.

 

[bernard_L]

I didn't say what you quoted as my words...

Correct. I missed that it was a quotation.
Anyway, this long quotation (absent the "quote" formatting, I assume that it continues to the end of your OP) forms the basis of your OP. And the manifest falsehood of the stuff about highlight compression casts a doubt on the other subtle opinions of 2F/2F. And, two posts after the one you quoted is another by 2F/2F https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/trying-a-few-rolls-of-fp4.68362/#post-963308 :that puts the first statement in context.

I should have been more clear. By compressed highlights, I am speaking mostly of something you see in printing (usually when burning in). I meant things that are beyond the point of detail and texture – paper base white and just before it, and things that land on the negative much beyond this. When they are burned down, there is not nearly as much tonal separation and detail as there is with a film like T-max.

As an aside, a search on photrio with "muddy" by user "2F/2F" results in 17 hits

How would you answer my question about differences between D-76 and Perceptol for current FP4+?

I have many years of experience with FP4 in D-76 1+1. But none with perceptol, so I cannot answer your question. And, what is "better" is to some extent a personal matter, apart from statistical studies conducted by Eastman Kodak long ago.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thanks!
Is D-76 1+1 your preferred development for current FP4+ ?

 

[snusmumriken]

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.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Thanks a lot, Jonathan!
It seems Perceptol does a better job than ID-11/D-76 for 35mm FP4+.
And wet printed it would be even better!
Very well done!!

 

[Lachlan Young]

It seems Perceptol does a better job than ID-11/D-76 for 35mm FP4+.

All you can tell from that image is about how poor the MTF of that scan is, nothing more - it's nowhere near good enough to make judgments about the relative sharpness/ granularity properties of Perceptol and ID-11/ D-76.

@bernard_L An awful lot of people assume that all 3D-crystal materials have similar curves to 135/120 Tri-X (and even that varies between developers) - and without ever plotting where the intended 7-stop range will land. And it doesn't necessarily follow that a totally linear response is good for all situations - c.f. Delta 100/400/3200 curve families.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Another question:
FP4+ in D-76 at EI125, and FP4+ in Perceptol at EI50 are so different, they really look like two different films. At box speed in D-76 it's the well known grainy FP4+, with grain that's not too far from the grain of HP5+. At EI50 in Perceptol, it's a small and even grain film, apart from showing a more delicate tone I prefer.
Have you found the same case with other films you use?
Which film and which EI, in which preferred developer?
Thanks.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

All you can tell from that image is about how poor the MTF of that scan is, nothing more - it's nowhere near good enough to make judgments about the relative sharpness/ granularity properties of Perceptol and ID-11/ D-76.

No, Lachlan, it's not because of that image.
It's because of what I've seen long ago, as I said in previous posts.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

And don't forget I like FP4+ in D-76 for 120, although not at EI125.
The difference in 35mm is huge.

 

[DREW WILEY]

FP4 has a bit more toe than TMax films; so for all practical purposes is a full stop slower if you need the full contrast range on the straight line portion of the curve. Therefore I routinely expose FP4 at 50, but TMX at box speed of 100. TMax digs deeper down into the shadows to begin with, so doesn't need the extra exposure boost way down there.

As far as developers go, D76 and Perceptol give similar curve shapes, with a slight sag in the middle. The visual difference in a print is minimal. Perceptol gives more distinct grain at 1:3 than 1:1; but with FP4 the difference in acutance will be minor. But I'd stick with 1:1 for anything small like 35mm or 120 film to keep grain size per se down.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

For those interested, not only classic grain, like grain in FP4+ is sharp in Perceptol: TMax 400 shows the same. Here's someone talking about it 12 years ago. It's cheap nonsense considering Perceptol dissolves any film's grain because that was in theory what happened before we were born: I say theory because in practice, then and now, all negatives and prints were and are sharp no matter if the word acutance is used by someone. Perceptol can't make images fuzzy. Seeing reality is healthy for us photographers, instead of repeating internet mistakes and misconceptions: people -I'm not talking about you, Lachlan, but about lots and lots of people I know here in my country in person, and you know a lot more than them- hear "a very small gain in grain and acutance when developer is dissolved" and they end up thinking "stock developers make unsharp images". Here's someone who was testing Perceptol stock:

"I recently tested Perceptol, the developer that is said most similar to Microdol-X, vs A49 with Tmax 400 (TMY-2). I enlarged a section of a 35mm negative 15 times, so the whole print would be 36x45 cm big. The difference in grain is very, very small. A49 produces very slighly less apparent but also slighly fuzzier grain. The image produced with Perceptol is considerably sharper and its grain is also pretty sharp."

I'm not saying Perceptol is the best option for all films, scenes and people, but for sure many people don't know Perceptol well, and yet they talk about it in wrong ways.
Personally I don't know a better option for grain growth control for those of us who like sharp visible grain on our photographs instead of wanting no visible grain.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

FP4 has a bit more toe than TMax films; so for all practical purposes is a full stop slower if you need the full contrast range on the straight line portion of the curve. Therefore I routinely expose FP4 at 50, but TMX at box speed of 100. TMax digs deeper down into the shadows to begin with, so doesn't need the extra exposure boost way down there.

As far as developers go, D76 and Perceptol give similar curve shapes, with a slight sag in the middle. The visual difference in a print is minimal. Perceptol gives more distinct grain at 1:3 than 1:1; but with FP4 the difference in acutance will be minor. But I'd stick with 1:1 for anything small like 35mm or 120 film to keep grain size per se down.

Hello Drew, great points and explanations.
I started using 1+0.5 for D-76 and Perceptol in 35mm not long ago, just to simplify things and avoid both stock and 1+1.
Thank you!

 

[Lachlan Young]

At box speed in D-76 it's the well known grainy FP4+, with grain that's not too far from the grain of HP5+

That would suggest overexposure - I have seen a chart of HP5 and FP4 (not plus - but for the purposes here it illustrates the point) showing RMS Grain vs exposure where it's quite easy to plot that overexposed FP4 would run very close in RMSG to precisely exposed HP5. With the very long straight line of FP4+ in D-76, it's potentially quite easy to overexpose and not notice it in anything other than increased granularity.

Therefore I routinely expose FP4 at 50, but TMX at box speed of 100. TMax digs deeper down into the shadows to begin with, so doesn't need the extra exposure boost way down there

Maybe in HC-110, but not in D-76. TMX seems to deliver a really quite sharp toe in HC-110, but in D-76, FP4+ is the faster of the two.

 

[bernard_L]

Thanks!
Is D-76 1+1 your preferred development for current FP4+ ?

To give an opinion would require real comparative tests, i.e. select 2-3 representative (for me) scenes (low/high dynamic range), photograph them in parallel (same time, same lighting) with "N" cameras, develop in the "N" developers under consideration, print, blind test (ID on reverse side of print). And then comes the role of the printing stage. And, one needs to define "preferred", or "best"? Sharpness? smoothness of grain? (For me tonality comes first)
I happen to be happy with FP4 in D-76 1+1 (plus a couple other films), yet have not shot enough rolls, or often enough, to be able to reliably visualize the print before I press the shutter; so I stick with what works for me.

 

[DREW WILEY]

It would really take a stretch to get FP4 graininess as high as HP5. Even way back when I was using 76, and as a beginner, was badly overexposing and overdeveloping FP4 sheets, they never came anywhere near close to HP5 in granularity.

And Lachlan - 76 does give a bit of unwarranted toe to TMax films. TMax RS developer gives the longest straight line, but is now discontinued. And except for separation negatives requiring an exceptionally long straight line, I switched to PMK pyro for most of my general shooting needs with all films, due to its superior highlight reproduction. I only use HC-110 for specialized lab applications due to its tremendous versatility of sheer dilution range. I recently returned to Perceptol strictly for sake of TMX100, and only at 1:3 dilution, which gives that particular film better edge acutance - it's weak point otherwise. Looks more like TMY400 that way, but finer-grained.

I'm out of FP4 sheets at the moment, but might or might not buy another box this week. Once March winds start, the greater speed of TMY400 is worth its weight in gold (and that's what one pays for it these days, it seems). This past week it's been unusually windy for a January. And once the Spring winds start up here on the coast, they don't end until August.

 

[snusmumriken]

It would really take a stretch to get FP4 graininess as high as HP5. Even way back when I was using 76, and as a beginner, was badly overexposing and overdeveloping FP4 sheets, they never came anywhere near close to HP5 in granularity.

I do agree with that.

But HP5 is fine too, unless over-developed. How much are you guys enlarging your negs (and why)? I typically print my 35mm format to 16"x12" (I don't have room to display or store larger prints) and at ordinary viewing distances in the house grain is never apparent, let alone distracting, with FP4+ or HP5+. Even if you look closely, grain isn't really an issue. Loss of sharpness caused by using too slow a film - and therefore too slow a shutter speed or a large aperture - is far more distracting than the grain of a faster film. But viewers forgive a lot of imperfections in a really good capture. That's obvious if you look at huge enlargements of famous photographs. At a recent London exhibition, some of Elliott Erwitt's photos were printed life-size, i.e. 1,800 mm from 36mm = 50x enlargement. Did I notice the grain? Can't say I did.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I NEVER enlarge HP5 more than 3X. In fact, I'll only shoot it in 8x10. But I don't use it journalistically, like a shapshooter would for its speed, but for the almost etched quality I get out of it in pyro deliberate over-development, and then limited magnification in print (I deal with the excess neg contrast if necessary using supplemental unsharp masking). FP4 is more of an all-round film, nice in either 4x5 or 8x10 format. It will do fine things in smaller cameras too; but I personally prefer the even higher detail capacity of Acros, TMX, sometimes Pan F, and formerly Efke 25, in 120 roll film cases, since it's common for me to enlarge those 6X7 and 6X9 negs onto 16x20 prints, amounting to 6X or 7X magnification or so.

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? The Marlboro Man was the most influential photograph in history, cause it probably killed more people than any other photograph; and even the original was miserably unsharp. But it did its job, and sold cigarettes, even at 200X enlargement. So it probably deserves an entire museum wall of its own.

 

[cliveh]

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.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oh - there's nothing wrong with 76 1:1 and FP4. But there are indeed many other options.