Debating switching to FP4+

Darkroom317 · Nov 4, 2012

I currently use Fomapan 100. I switched from Plus-X when it was discontinued. Right before I switched I starting using using the zone system and cutting the speed of Plus-X in half. I wish I had know all of this at the beginning of the 100 rolls I used.

I am starting to dislike Fomapan because of a few QC problems as well as its tonality. The negatives are very contrasty and it seems like Fomapan is very prone to blocking up. I used a couple of rolls of Plus-X at a location where I used Fomapan. I like the Plus-X better.

The last time I used FP4+ was a few years ago. At the time I just used an incident meter and didn't develop my film. I knew nothing of how great a spot meter is.

I have heard that FP4+ is similar to Plus-X. How close is it? Rodinal is my standard developer. How well does it work? Is it worth the extra $2 per roll.

Should I even bother switching film or could this all be just a problem with technique?

I expose Fomapan 100 at EI 50 and place my shadows on Zone IV. I tend to use N development.

cliveh · Nov 4, 2012

I have never used Fomapan 100, but use FP4+ all the time and think it's a very good film.

chriscrawfordphoto · Nov 4, 2012

Maybe you're overexposing the Foma film? I've shot a lot of it lately, in 120 size, and had no blocked highlights. I've developed it in D-76 1+1 and in PMK. In PMK I have to shoot it at EI-40, but the contrast is normal.

I actually recently did a comparison of Fomapan 100 and FP4, both developed in PMK. The tonality was similar. The FP4 had slightly more highlight contrast. To me, FP4 had three advantages over Fomapan 100. First, it is faster. EI-80 in PMK, so its a stop faster. Second, it does not curl up like Fomapan. I have had a couple of frames with pinholes in the emulsion with Foma, and never with Ilford.

Foma has the advantage of cost.

Ilford FP4 works well in Rodinal, but I think the highlights are harsher in Rodinal than in PMK with FP4.

FP4 in Rodinal 1+50

FP4 in PMK

Fomapan 100 in PMK

Stephanie Brim · Nov 4, 2012

...maybe I *should* ponder switching to PMK.

Darkroom317 · Nov 4, 2012

I figured both are good.

Right now I am just going off scans for web purposes. Photoshop is not the easiest tool when trying to get what I am want. The dodging in burning tool has problems. But that is for another forum. My experience in the darkroom has been better with my Fomapan negatives. That will be the true test. As far as I can tell all I have figured out is that Plus-X scans better than Fomapan.

Stephanie Brim · Nov 4, 2012

Don't go by what scans tell you: it's all about how something prints, however it gets printed.

chriscrawfordphoto · Nov 4, 2012

Stephanie Brim said:
...maybe I *should* ponder switching to PMK.

I've been working with it a lot over the last year or so. I love it. Even with Tmax 100, Tmax 400, and Fuji Acros, it is a gorgeous developer (its often claimed that PMK is not good for modern t-grain type films, but I like it for them as well as older films like FP4 and Tri-X).

chriscrawfordphoto · Nov 4, 2012

Darkroom317 said:
I figured both are good.

Right now I am just going off scans for web purposes. Photoshop is not the easiest tool when trying to get what I am want. The dodging in burning tool has problems. But that is for another forum. My experience in the darkroom has been better with my Fomapan negatives. That will be the true test. As far as I can tell all I have figured out is that Plus-X scans better than Fomapan.

The dodge/burn tools in Photoshop are horrid. Here's a tutorial I wrote on how to get darkroom-quality dodge/burn results in Photoshop. If you're mostly printing in the darkroom, and Fomapan is working well for darkroom printing, I would not change just because another films scans better.

markbarendt · Nov 4, 2012

Darkroom317 said:
Should I even bother switching film or could this all be just a problem with technique?

I expose Fomapan 100 at EI 50 and place my shadows on Zone IV. I tend to use N development.

Well FP4 is a really beautiful IMO film and I've had no quality problems.

I shoot FP4 at box and incident meter and it is truly rare for me to be disappointed.

A couple thoughts though before you switch.

First. Just because Plus X works well at 1/2 box speed with a spot meter for you, doesn't mean every other film will too.

Second. EI 50 and placing shadows at Zone IV is like shooting at EI 25, so 1/4 of box rating, not 1/2. That means you are adding two stops of extra exposure which could easily explain your blocked up highlights in many scenes.

Third. Most films do a truly fine job but that doesn't mean you'll get along with every film. Kinda like dating, you gotta figure it out for yourself.

LJH · Nov 4, 2012

It makes me scratch my head about what the fuss is all about when you write about it being $2 a roll more expensive.

If you're shooting 35mm, that's about 6 cents a frame more expensive for a 36 frame roll.

If you're shooting 6x6, it's about 17 cents a shot.

Surely, your time and the effort/cost to get to the shot are worth this slight increase for better quality?

Try shooting sheet film where it can be a difference of dollars per shot!!

cliveh · Nov 4, 2012

Something I should have mentioned. I notice that you say Rodinal is your standard developer. Perhaps I should have mentioned that I use FP4+ with D76 at 1:1. The developer film combination is very important and I believe Rodinal is an acutance developer (others will correct me if wrong). Rodinal is also an excellent developer and probably my second choice to D76. However, my own experience with it showed it produced slightly better results with faster film.

markbarendt · Nov 4, 2012

Stephanie Brim said:
...maybe I *should* ponder switching to PMK.

My fave of late is DD-X on all my b&w films, been playing with staining developers too (WD2D+) but it is becoming a real love/hate relationship.

Stephanie Brim · Nov 4, 2012

I'll be contact printing 5x7 and you know how many people go on and on about the virtues of using a pyro-based developer for contact printing.

For now I'm just going to run through what I have. Next year, when I run out of both film and developer, I'll revisit the idea.

ic-racer · Nov 4, 2012

chriscrawfordphoto said:
no blocked highlights.

However, the scans shown are all of low contrast scenes (overcast days).

chriscrawfordphoto · Nov 4, 2012

ic-racer said:
However, the scans shown are all of low contrast scenes (overcast days).

Right, you have to reduce developing time (N-1 in zone system terms) for high contrast scenes.

Gerald C Koch · Nov 4, 2012

FP4+ is a good film and Ilford's quality control makes it an excellent choice. At first I would suggest using one of the developers that Ilford suggests for this fiilm.

Darkroom317 · Nov 4, 2012

Now that I think about I did use ID11 3 years ago, maybe with FP4+. I didn't much care for it. I'm going to give FP4+ another try.

brian steinberger · Nov 4, 2012

+1 for FP4. Great film, period. Pick whatever developer you like. I prefer ID-11 and Rodinal.

Richard S. (rich815) · Nov 4, 2012

One thing I've determined over the years is that most films are terrific and capable of excellent results in many developers. Just a matter of working with it to get what you want. I've found FP4+ a great film and it's awesome in Rodinal. Gotten great results with D-76, Xtol, Exactol and DiXactol too.

In Rodinal:

Ben swim lesson Albany Pool
Rolleiflex 2.8C Xenotar
FP4+
Rodinal 1-50 11min, 30sec 22C
by rich8155 (Richard Sintchak), on Flickr

Aron · Nov 5, 2012

I firmly believe the problem you are dealing with is not related to your materials, or not as much as to stop you from getting the results you want. FP4+ is a popular emulsion, for good reason and both ID-11 (D76) and Rodinal has helped quite a few photographers to get great prints, whatever expression they were after.

I have little experience with scanning, but aiming for a lower contrast negative than is needed for darkroom printing usually takes care of most problems.

So, here's my recommendation: ditch the spot meter for a while, find the incident meter you used to have and go out on a "normal contrast" day, bracket your exposures from EI 25 to EI 200 on your chosen film, develop it and find the frames that give you enough shadow detail. After that, adjust development time to get the desired highlight detail.

With Fomapan 100 overdevelopment can happen rather easily.

You have to decide what is behind your "blocked highlights". Is overdevelopment, a high brightness range or an upswept curve the reason you can't put tone in your highlights easily?

This is my personal opinion, but I think a scanner/its software does so much work in the background to make the picture look good no matter what, that little can be learned by using it.

Only after you can repeatedly get good images (desired tonality) using an incident meter and normal development, would I recommend using the spot meter and the zone system.

pgomena · Nov 5, 2012

+1 also for FP4+. I use it in 120 roll film and 4x5, 5x7 and whole-plate film sizes and find consistent quality control and I get excellent, consistent results. You might pay more for products from Ilford, Kodak, and Fuji, but cutting corners on cheap film is foolish economy. Film is the least expensive expendable item on any shoot. Why take a risk with a product you yourself said shows quality control issues?

Peter Gomena

Three Owls · Nov 5, 2012

I like my FP4+ in Pyrocat HD, or PMK if there's snow or ice in the scene, or Rodinal semi stand for near box speed. I tend to rate it 60-80 in Pyrocat, 40-50 in PMK and 100 Rodinal semi-stand for rollfilm. I recently accidentally shot a few sheets of 4x5 at 400-800 handheld (sunny 16 screwup, no time to meter until afterwards) and used Microphen stock-strength developed by inspection, saved much of the shadow detail and got good mid tones and highlights, I'd be comfortable rating it at 240-320 this way if I needed the speed.

I used to like Plus-x. I like FP4+ better and even though money is very tight for me I would not use Foma etc, its a false economy for my purposes... my film is less than my gas to drive even a few miles.

Darkroom317 · Nov 24, 2012

Process was more the issue than the film. I just developed a roll at N-1. I used 6:45 instead of the standard 7:30. The negatives look great. I was using around 9:00 for N+1 which was far too much.

wilfbiffherb · Nov 27, 2012

have you tried non destructive dodging and burning? much simpler, much safer and much easier.

Thomas Bertilsson · Nov 27, 2012

Darkroom317 said:
Process was more the issue than the film. I just developed a roll at N-1. I used 6:45 instead of the standard 7:30. The negatives look great. I was using around 9:00 for N+1 which was far too much.

Technique is everything, and final negative contrast is a combination of:
1. Lighting conditions
2. Film exposure (based on your meter and metering technique)
3. Developer choice
4. Developing time
5. Developer temperature
6. Developer concentration/dilution
7. Agitation

Some like to add film contrast into that equation, but that is a constant, not a variable, meaning you have to compensate for it with technique. Which is exactly what you found out by shortening your developing time.

If negative contrast is too high, you can mitigate that by exposing more to get the shadows off the toe of the curve, and then shorten your development time in order to give you highlights that print/scan well. Total negative contrast is always about the differential between the highest printable tones and the lowest. If they're too far apart, tonality is compromised by either blocked up highlights, or shadows that did not get enough exposure. Technique. Not materials.

Debating switching to FP4+

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency