FP4 @ 200 ASA

[CMoore]

It's strange, but when I first began developing my own film in the 60's, I always used and rated rated FP4 at 200 ASA and developed it in May & Baker's Promicrol. Some things were easier back then.

All else being equal.....how "different" was FP4 from what today is called FP4+.?
Thank You

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I used to use FP4 exclusively as I obtained it rather cheaply in bulk form. I would shoot it from 80 ASA through to 160 ASA and developed it as though it was 125 ASA (or box speed).

This was quite good and I remember the only difference was shadow detail certainly not being as good as it could have been at 160 ASA.

Once on a camping holiday in the middle of nowhere, I came upon this photographer who went out in the morning to shoot, returning around late breakfast time and disappearing into the big box on the back of his truck to develop his film; which was FP4. I found out he was exposing it at 200 ASA and developing it accordingly. I was unaware at that time (1969) that you could successfully expose FP4 at 200 ASA and get good negatives.

I tried exposing at 200 ASA but for whatever reason things weren’t too flash. I then found out you needed to extend the development to get pretty good results; I did. My results were better, time marched on I became better, as did my negatives.

Eventually FP4 was replaced with FP4+, by then I was using a Jobo and rotary processing. I was certainly a far better technical photographer by that time and still used FP4+ for virtually all of my photography. I could and did shoot from 80 ASA through to 160 ASA on a single roll and develop normally; living with the under and over exposure by adjusting in the darkroom.

Around 1990-1991 I was at the Ilford Australia head office, which was quite large then. I got speaking to one of their technicians who normally helped with our graphic arts requirements. He informed me that while you could get and do get good and extremely usable images doing what I was doing, I would possibly be better off by exposing at 200 ASA and developing for 200 ASA. This was with the then new FP4+ film, which was why we were talking about it.

I did do that and found that I certainly got better results by exposing at 200 ASA and developing for 200 ASA. I found 1+1 gave me the best results in D76, or at least results I preferred. I used FP4+ at 200 ASA until I discovered Fuji Neopan 400, which I have used since as my standard 135 format film, I’m just starting to run out, maybe about a year of that left.

I never warmed to HP5+ although many have, so I stuck with FP4+. I did when required push it to 400 ASA and used Microphen; about the only time I have used Ilford developer. That combination is alright, but I never went gaga over it.

To be more specific for your requests. I looked up some of my processing of 135 FP4+ that I developed in 2000-2001. Where I exposed it between 80 ASA through to 160 ASA on single rolls. Jobo 1540 tank (4 rolls of film) using 500ml of developing solution, rotary developing, D76 1+1 for a diffused enlarger head, 16’15” at 20ºC.

This was my standard time for that film, tank and developer with rotary developing, which worked quite well for me.

I still use FP4+ extensively in 4x5” sheet format, it is my favourite film for that format. I have, on only a handful of times, upped that film from my standard 100 ASA to 160 ASA or 200 ASA. I see in this format, things one doesn’t see that easily in 135 format. When I have exposed FP4+ at 200 ASA and developed accordingly, or as best as I can for each single sheet of film. It is and can be really good, but the reality is, it just doesn’t cut the mustard shadow detail wise, as rating HP5+ at 200 ASA. But nonetheless, at that 200 ASA exposure, it is pretty good.

4x5” sheet film is the only place I shoot HP5+.

What you are wishing to do, should work well.

Mick.

Ilford FP4+ in D76(1+1) is also a favourite of mine

 

[markbarendt]

I have about 10 rolls of FP4 remaining, i like the way it looks (when i have shot it at 125) and am wanting to gain just a bit of shutter speed.

How about trading 1-stop of aperture (a little DOF)?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Current FP4plus has slightly finer grain and mildly different dev times than the original FP4. The printed look is very similar. Older sheet film was interleafed with paper due to emulsion scuff susceptibility; but the current sheet film is distinctly slicker and more prone to Newton rings in a glass carrier.

 

[Vaughn]

Today's Ilford Ortho Plus comes interleafed with paper...a nice throw back as I re-use the paper.

 

[JWMster]

CMoore (Chris?): BTW, thank you for posting this question. Been wondering about this myself... as a guy who loves FP4 but finds sometimes I'm just running out of light at ISO 100, and wondered similarly between switching to HP5 or pushing FP4. The latter is argued in principally as consistent with the "one film" KISS approach, but reading Mick Fagan's comments, I've a box of HP5 to run and see how it comes out - in the shadows. With 4X5, I think that's kind of what we're about largely... or at least don't want to miss. So thanks to all in this!

 

[Scott Micciche]

CMoore (Chris?): BTW, thank you for posting this question. Been wondering about this myself... as a guy who loves FP4 but finds sometimes I'm just running out of light at ISO 100, and wondered similarly between switching to HP5 or pushing FP4. The latter is argued in principally as consistent with the "one film" KISS approach, but reading Mick Fagan's comments, I've a box of HP5 to run and see how it comes out - in the shadows. With 4X5, I think that's kind of what we're about largely... or at least don't want to miss. So thanks to all in this!

You can shoot it at EI 400 and develop with TMAX Dev 1:4. I find the grain smaller than HP5+. Take a look over on filmdev.org for some samples.

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Although the difference in speed could seem small between say FP4+ and HP5+, that difference is really huge if we talk about street photography...
Medium speed films and fast films are two worlds: the world of focusing every scene with a wider aperture, and the world of zone focusing with a smaller aperture...
Developers won't change things very much, just half a stop: the type of film is what really matters...
So you should decide which type of lens: one that's natural for one of those worlds... Use a 50mm and focus (ISO100-125) or use a 35mm/28mm for fast zone focusing (ISO400)...
HP5+, TMY-2 and Tri-X are good for street.
I get EI250 with FP4+ for soft light using Microphen, but IMO that's not enough in the streets for half the levels of light. That, of course, if we want to keep the same small f-stop all the time, which helps us to learn how to "meter" light with our eyes.
Direct sun is another story: you decide if you lose all shadow detail by using the soft light camera for sunny scenes, or use a second camera for direct sun only... A middle point, at box speed, is certainly possible, but not the best option for both types of scene contrast.

 

[takilmaboxer]

Shooting at 200 and developing +25% time (10 minutes) in D76 gives me an excellent N+1. It works great for cloudy or foggy days, which you may occasionally encounter on the California coast.

 

[David Allen]

Hi there,

if you are comfortable mixing your own developer from a few raw chemicals, there is a solution that may be perfect for you.

Here in Germany there is a photographer called Rüdiger Hartung who has posted a number of items about using a push version of Barry Thornton’s Two Bath developer in combination with multiple passing through the two baths to achieve real speed increase with medium ISO films that actual helps you to retain shadow detail and control contrast. At least from the results that he has posted online he seems to be on to something.

Bath A
750 ml of hot water to which you dissolve:
3.25 g Metol
3.35 g Vitamin C (apparently works as a super additive with Metol)
0.3 g Phenidone (for shadows and push on repeats).
80g Sodium Sulfite
Then top up to make one litre.

Bath B
750 ml of hot water to which you dissolve:
10 g/l Sodium Metaborate
Then top up to make one litre.

For 100-125 ISO films the processing time is 4:30 minutes in each bath.

What he has showed is that, if you want to expose FP4 at a higher ISO AND retain shadow details you do the following processing sequence:
Bath A for 4:30 minutes
Pour Bath A into a jug for later reuse.
Do NOT add stop or water bath but go straight to Bath B.
Bath B for 4:30 minutes
Pour Bath B into a jug for later reuse.
Do NOT add stop or water bath but go straight to Bath A.
Bath A for 4:30 minutes
Pour Bath A into a jug for later reuse.
Do NOT add stop or water bath but go straight to Bath B.
Bath B for 4:30 minutes
Pour Bath B into a jug for later reuse.

This sequence can be repeated up to 6 times depending upon how much shadow detail you want to rescue.

After your multiple immersions in Baths A & B you then follow with the usual Stop, Fix and Wash stages.

Bests,

David.

Please note my temporary website address: http://dsallen.carpentier-galerie.de

 

[relistan]

Diafine.

If you really want to do what you say you want to do @CMoore ^^ this is the developer you want.

 

[relistan]

Hi there,

if you are comfortable mixing your own developer from a few raw chemicals, there is a solution that may be perfect for you.

Here in Germany there is a photographer called Rüdiger Hartung who has posted a number of items about using a push version of Barry Thornton’s Two Bath developer in combination with multiple passing through the two baths to achieve real speed increase with medium ISO films that actual helps you to retain shadow detail and control contrast. At least from the results that he has posted online he seems to be on to something.

This is super interesting, David. I have mixed up and used this developer a bunch of times in the past, but never in a repeat fashion like that. Maybe I will try it.